Billy Wayne Stocks v. Department of Transportation
Background
- Appellant Billy Wayne Stocks, an Air Traffic Control Specialist, applied for two positions: Traffic Management Specialist (TMS) and NOTAM/Weather Specialist; he met minimum qualifications for both.
- The Air Traffic Manager selected Stocks for the NOTAM/Weather Specialist position; HR issued a "Firm Offer Letter" referencing a higher‑paid TMS position and Stocks accepted.
- Stocks began work in April 2012 and performed NOTAM/Weather Specialist duties; he later certified for the facility in September 2012 and requested the remaining pay increase.
- HR acknowledged mistakes: it initially offered an incorrect (TMS) salary, later issued SF‑50s retroactively placing him in TMS, then corrected records to show appointment and pay consistent with NOTAM/Weather Specialist.
- Administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of MSPB jurisdiction; the Board remanded to develop whether a promotion had been effected. On remand, the judge found HR errors, no authorized appointment to TMS, and that the pay correction was an administrative error beyond Board jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stocks was promoted to TMS such that its cancellation is an appealable reduction in grade/pay | Stocks contends HR offer and his acceptance effected a promotion to TMS and later cancellation reduced his pay | Agency argues no authorized appointing official approved a TMS appointment; SF‑50s and offer references were HR errors | Held: No promotion was effected; appointment to TMS was not authorized, so no appealable reduction in grade/pay |
| Whether the Board has jurisdiction over correction of the erroneous higher pay | Stocks asserts he suffered a reduction in pay when agency corrected salary and seeks Board review | Agency contends the change was correction of an administrative/pay‑setting error, which is outside Board jurisdiction | Held: Correction of administrative pay‑setting error is not within Board jurisdiction; Board lacks jurisdiction over reduction‑in‑pay claim |
| Whether Stocks’ acceptance created a binding employment contract entitling him to TMS pay | Stocks argues his faxed acceptance formed a contract obligating agency to the higher pay | Agency responds Federal employment depends on appointment authority, not contract acceptance | Held: Federal employment requires an authorized appointment; acceptance alone does not create federal employment contract rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Levy v. Department of Labor, 118 M.S.P.R. 619 (discussing requirements to establish an effected promotion)
- Marrero v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 100 M.S.P.R. 424 (cancellation of an effected promotion is an appealable reduction in grade)
- Deida v. Department of the Navy, 110 M.S.P.R. 408 (overruling on other grounds; referenced for promotion/cancellation principles)
- Bartel v. Federal Aviation Administration, 14 M.S.P.R. 24 (appointment, not contract law, governs federal employment)
- McGarigle v. U.S. Postal Service, 40 M.S.P.R. 675 (correction of administrative pay errors is not within MSPB jurisdiction)