Opinion ID: 441753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts and Proceedings of This Case

Text: 12 On February 7, 1980, the NTEU, which is the exclusive representative of over 120,000 federal employees, petitioned the MSPB, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1205(e), to review three OPM regulations, alleging the regulations were invalid on their face. On January 13, 1981, the MSPB granted the petition for review regarding the seasonal-worker furlough regulation, 5 C.F.R. Sec. 752.401(c)(10) (1983) (originally published at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 752.401(c)(9)), and declined to review the other two. 5 13 5 C.F.R. Sec. 752.401(c)(10) excludes [p]lacement of an employee serving on an intermittent, part-time, or seasonal basis in a nonduty, nonpay status in accordance with conditions established at the time of appointment from the adverse action provisions of 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7511-7514. The NTEU argued to the MSPB that Sec. 752.401(c)(10) is invalid on its face because seasonal workers 6 are employees 7 for the purposes of the CSRA's adverse action protections, placing a seasonal worker in nonduty, nonpay status is a furlough of that worker within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(5), 8 and a furlough of a seasonal worker for thirty days or less must therefore give rise to the procedural protections of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513. 9 14 The MSPB agreed to review the regulation, stating that the NTEU's petition raised valid questions as to whether the OPM had exceeded its authority by so restricting the adverse action procedures of 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7511-7514. It therefore directed the NTEU and OPM to file briefs and affidavits addressing these issues, and sought public comments. Joint Appendix at 27. 15 The MSPB ordered the OPM to provide information regarding the nature and extent of seasonal employment in the federal government; in response, the OPM provided factual submissions from ten federal agencies. See Joint Appendix at 66-172. The Office of Management and Budget also submitted comments concerning the government-wide impact of requiring adverse action procedures when seasonal employees are placed in nonduty, nonpay status. 16 After a review of all submissions, the MSPB issued an opinion and order on February 10, 1982, concluding that Congress did not intend that the layoff of a seasonal employee, when accomplished in accordance with the terms of appointment, should be deemed an adverse action furlough under Secs. 7511 and 7513. Joint Appendix at 180-84. It therefore found the regulation valid on its face and dismissed the NTEU's petition for review. This appeal followed.