Opinion ID: 1907834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Language of Section 1-602.4(c).

Text: The OEA's disposition of this case in Ms. Clay's favor was predicated on the proposition that, as of January 1, 1980, Ms. Clay was automatically transferred into the Career Service by operation of the CMPA. Specifically, the OEA relied on Section 1.602.4(c), which we have quoted above at pp. 3-4, supra. The third sentence of that section, however, reads, in pertinent part, as follows: The rights and benefits protected under this subsection shall be only those applicable to said employees under the provisions of personnel laws and rules and regulations in force on December 31, 1979 .... (Emphasis added). The foregoing sentence was unaccountably omitted from the OEA's statutory analysis. Indeed, the OEA quoted only the portion of the section which precedes this sentence. [9] The OEA thus analyzed the provision under consideration without giving any consideration to the language therein which deals most directly with the issue at hand. Ms. Clay acknowledged before the OEA that, as of December 31, 1979, her GS-13 position was not in the federal Career Service. Because Section 1-602.4(c), by its terms, conferred on her only those protections to which she was entitled prior to January 1, 1980, and because Ms. Clay did not enjoy, in 1979, the right not to be terminated without cause, it follows that the enactment of Section 1-602.4(c) did not invest her with such a right. Indeed, if the second and third sentences of the section are read together, then the only reasonable import of the entire provision is that the transferred employee receives all of the rights and benefits that he or she enjoyed in the federal service or in the pre-CMPA Career Service, but no additional rights or benefits.