Opinion ID: 526018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bumping Rights

Text: 5 Harris, Waksman, and Wise contend that the board committed three legal or procedural errors in sustaining the agency's bumping determination. First, in concluding that they were not capable of bumping any other employee, Harris, Waksman, and Wise argue that the board committed reversible error by relying upon position descriptions, including trivial portions of the position descriptions, rather than upon the critical elements of each position. We are not persuaded. In sustaining the agency's RIF actions, the board reviewed and relied not only upon the various position descriptions, but also upon other documentary evidence and, in particular, upon the testimony of members of a RIF panel consisting of six managers from all areas of the agency. Harris', Waksman's, and Wise's argument amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the weight given by the board to the evidence before it. Before the board, they simply failed to demonstrate a positive ability to successfully perform all critical elements of the specific position[s] sought. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 351.702(a)(4) (1988). 6 The second ground of legal error cited by Harris, Waksman, and Wise is that the board, in determining whether they demonstrated their capability to bump into a particular position, failed to consider the 90-day grace period for orientation to a new position. This argument is frivolous. Our review of the record indicates that the board clearly considered the 90-day period in sustaining the agency's RIF action. 7 Finally, Harris, Waksman, and Wise contend that the agency failed to specify and defend its grounds for denying them bumping rights. They argue that the board, in sustaining the agency's denial of bumping rights, relied upon post-hoc rationalizations that were not relied upon by the agency when it made its decisions. This argument is meritless. After a careful review of the record, we must conclude that Harris, Waksman, and Wise have not established that the agency, in conducting the RIF, failed to comply with the regulations set forth in 5 C.F.R. Part 351.