How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask N Cal Atty Your Own Question

N Cal Atty
N Cal Atty, Military Law Answer Team
Category: Military Law
Satisfied Customers: 8152
Experience:  Military Law Expert
9653905
Type Your Military Law Question Here...
N Cal Atty is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

A cook (permanent, grade 4, excepted employee with no veterans

Customer Question

A cook (permanent, grade 4, excepted employee with no veterans preference entitlement) was removed from the Veteran's Canteen Service after 8 years of service for "unauthorized removal of government property" (1 piece of pancake). The adverse employment action was appealed to MSPB. MSPB says it has no jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction to hear this case is not the MSPB?
Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: Military Law
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
What entity did the cook work for?

Did he or she have a written employment agreement?

Did the employer have an employee handbook?

Edited by N Cal Atty on 8/16/2010 at 9:22 AM EST
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto Health Care System Canteen Service.
No written employment agreement.
No employee handbook but there is a CBA between American Federation of Government Employees and Department of Veterans Affairs. Grievance made by union informally. No arbitration was conducted. A proposed action for removal was made by Canteen Chief and Region Manager of the Veterans Canteen Service Central Office approved recommendation and removed cook from service
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
Can you tell me which statutes the MSPB cited when it refused to hear this?

Was this job treated as a civil service position?

Edited by N Cal Atty on 8/16/2010 at 9:39 AM EST
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Title 38 USC 7802(5)
5CFR 752.401(d)12
Chavez v. Dept of Veterans Affairs 65 MSPR 590, 591-94 (1994)
Bentley v. Veterans Admn 3 MSPR 270, 271 (1980)

I do not know if it is or it is not treated as a civil service position.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
It's really late and I will need some time to read the statutes and hopefully locate those cases. I hope to reply by tomorrow afternoon (Pacific time).
If that is OK, please let me know. If not, I can opt out and let another expert take over your question.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
It is okay. I will wait till tomorrow.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
Did MSPB issue a written opinion in your case?

I have collected all the research you pointed me to and am no closer to an answer other than that it looks like MSPB does lack jurisdiction.

You mentioned:
Title 38 USC 7802(5)
There is a 7802(e) posted at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode38/usc_sec_38_00007802----000-.html
(e) Personnel.— The Secretary shall employ such persons as are necessary for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the Service, and pay the salaries, wages, and expenses of all such employees from the funds of the Service. Personnel necessary for the transaction of the business of the Service at canteens, warehouses, and storage depots shall be appointed, compensated from funds of the Service, and removed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service and chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5. Those employees are subject to the provisions of title 5 relating to a preference eligible described in section 2108 (3) of title 5, subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, and subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5. An employee appointed under this section may be considered for appointment to a Department position in the competitive service in the same manner that a Department employee in the competitive service is considered for transfer to such position. An employee of the Service who is appointed to a Department position in the competitive service under the authority of the preceding sentence may count toward the time-in-service requirement for a career appointment in such position any previous period of employment in the Service.

5 CFR 752.401(d)12 is posted at
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=7ce22eb3b7a2af96c6a9c60da4c90806&rgn=div8&view=text&node=5:2.0.1.1.13.4.1.1&idno=5
d) Employees excluded. This subpart does not apply to: ///
(12) An employee whose agency or position has been excluded from the appointing provisions of title 5, United States Code, by separate statutory authority in the absence of any provision to place the employee within the coverage of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code; ///

Chavez v. Dept of Veterans Affairs 65 MSPR 590, 591-94 (1994) is posted at
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=246287&version=246559&application=ACROBAT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
65 M.S.P.R. 590
Docket Number DE-0752-94-0307-I-1
LINDA D. CHAVEZ, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Agency.
Date: December 13, 1994
William J. Tryon, Esquire, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the appellant.
XXXXX XXXXXcha Perkins, Esquire, Albuquerque, New Mexico, For the agency.
BEFORE
Ben L. Erdreich, Chairman
Jessica L. Parks, Vice Chairman
Antonio C. Amador, Member
OPINION AND ORDER
The appellant petitions for review of an initial decision that dismissed her appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. We DENY the petition for failure to meet the criteria for review set
forth at 5 C.F.R. § 1 201.115. For the reasons set forth below, we REOPEN the appeal
on our own motion pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117, and AFFIRM the initial decision as
MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order, still DISMISSING the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4202, now 38 U.S.C. § 7802, the agency appointed the
appellant, a nonpreference eligible, to the excepted service position of NA-2 Food
Service Worker in the Veterans’ Canteen Service on April 21, 1986. See Appeal File
(AF), Tab 5, Subtab 4ZZ. The appellant completed her 1-year probationary period, and
the agency promoted her to the NA-3 Food Service Worker position on December 31,
1989. See AF, Tab 5, Subtabs 4WW, 4YY. Effective April 1, 1994, the agency removed
the appellant from her NA-3 position based on various charges of misconduct. See AF,
Tab 5, Subtabs 4A-4C, 4F.
The agency informed the appellant that she could appeal her removal to the Board,
and the appellant filed a timely appeal and requested a hearing. See AF, Tab 1. The
agency subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of Board jurisdiction, arguing
that the appellant’s appointment pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4202(5), now 38 U.S.C.
2
§ 7802(5), excluded her from the due process provisions of chapter 75, title 5. See AF,
Tab 8. After the appellant filed a response to the agency’s motion to dismiss, see AF,
Tab 11, the administrative judge, without holding a hearing, dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction, see Initial Decision (ID) at 2-4. The administrative judge found that
the appellant did not meet the statutory definition of “employee” because the statutory
authority for her appointment “excludes the appellant from the statutory procedural
protections of 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-13 ....” ID at 3.
The appellant has filed a timely petition for review of the initial decision, and the
agency has filed a timely response to the petition. See Petition for Review File (PFRF),
Tabs 1, 3.
ANALYSIS
The Civil Service Due Process Amendments of 1990 (“the Amendments”), Pub. L.
No. 101-376, 104 Stat. 461, amended title 5, United States Code, to grant adverse
action appeal rights to nonpreference eligibles in the excepted service who are not
serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to
the competitive service, or who have completed 2 years of current, continuous service
in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary
appointment limited to 2 years or less. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C); see Ferguson v.
Department of the Interior, 59 M.S.P.R. 305, 307 (1993). Because the appellant was not
serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to
the competitive service, and had completed 2 years of current continuous service in the
same or similar position with the agency under other than a temporary appointment, she
appears to meet the definition of “employee” set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C).
The provisions of subchapter II of chapter 75, title 5, however, do not apply to
those employees described at 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b). Although the appellant argues on
review that section 7511(b) does not exclude her from coverage under the
Amendments, see PFRF, Tab 1 at 2, the agency conceded below that 5 U.S.C.
§ 7511(b) does not specifically exclude her from such coverage, see AF, Tab 8 at 2.1
Rather, the agency relied upon 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(d)(12), which provides that adverse
action appeal rights are not afforded to an employee whose “position has been
excluded from the appointing provisions of title 5, United States Code, by separate
statutory authority in the absence of any provision to place the employee within the
coverage of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code.” In comments on the regulation
that were published in the Federal Register, OPM stated that such employees were
excluded from coverage “whether or not they [were] specifically listed as excluded in the
1 We note that an employee who holds a position within the Veterans Health Administration that
has been excluded from the competitive service by or under a provision of title 38, unless such
employee was appointed to such position under section 7401(3) of such title, is not covered by
the Amendments. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(10). This provision does not exclude the appellant
because she was employed by the Veterans’ Canteen Service, which functions as an
independent unit in the Department of Veterans Affairs with exclusive control over activities that
include personnel management. See 38 U.S.C. § 7808.
3
[Due Process Amendments].” 58 Fed. Reg. 13,191 (Mar. 10, 1993); AF, Tab 5, Subtab
4EE.2
The agency contends that 38 U.S.C. § 7802(5) excludes the appellant from the
appointing provisions of title 5. Section 7802(5) provides that the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs shall, with respect to the Veterans’ Canteen Service,
employ such persons as are necessary for the establishment,
maintenance, and operation of the Service, and pay the salaries, wages,
and expenses of all such employees from the funds of the Service.
Personnel necessary for the transaction of the business of the Service at
canteens, warehouses, and storage depots shall be appointed,
compensated from funds of the Service, and removed by the Secretary
without regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the
competitive service and chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title
5. Those employees are subject to the provisions of title 5 relating to a
preference eligible described in section 2108(3) of title 5, subchapter I of
chapter 81 of title 5, and subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5.
38 U.S.C. § 7802(5) (emphasis supplied).
The Board has held that 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(d)(12) applies, by its terms, to
positions that have been excluded generally from the appointing provisions of title 5.
See Todd v. Department of Defense, 63 M.S.P.R. 4, 8 (1994); Briggs v. National
Council on Disability, 60 M.S.P.R. 331, 334 (1994). In its comments on section
752.401(d)(12), OPM stated that “a legislative exclusion from the appointing
requirements of title 5” was “required for a statutory exclusion from chapter 75.” 58 Fed.
Reg. at 13,192; AF, Tab 5, Subtab 4EE. Section 752.401(d)(12) does not indicate that
the appointment and removal of employees “without regard to the provisions of title 5
governing appointments in the competitive service” is the same as exclusion from
chapter 75. Excluding a position from the appointing requirements applicable to the
competitive service means only that the position is in the excepted service. See Briggs,
60 M.S.P.R. at 334-35 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2103(a) (“the ‘excepted service’ consists of
those civil service positions which are not in the competitive service or the Senior
Executive Service”)). Thus, on its face, 38 U.S.C. § 7802(5) does not appear to exclude
the appellant from the appointing requirements of title 5 in general.
Section 4202(5) of title 38, however, originally provided that personnel necessary
for the transaction of the business of the Veterans’ Canteen Service “shall be appointed,
compensated from funds of the Service, and removed ... without regard to civil-service
laws ....” Pub. L. No. 79-636, § 2(e), 1946 U.S.C.C.A.N. 853, 854 (emphasis supplied).
2 The appellant contends on review that 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(d)(12) does not apply to her
because she had been an employee of the Veterans’ Canteen Service for 7 years before the
regulation’s April 9, 1993 effective date. PFRF, Tab 1 at 2. Neither the regulation nor OPM’s
comments on the regulation, however, indicate that the regulation does not apply to employees
who were appointed before April 9, 1993. See 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(d)(12); 58 Fed. Reg. 13,191
(Mar. 10, 1993).
4
In 1982, Congress substituted the language “without regard to the provisions of title 5
governing appointments in the competitive service” for the broader language “without
regard to civil-service laws.” See Technical Amendments to 10, 14, 37 and 38 U.S.C.A.
(hereinafter “the Act”), Pub. L. No. 97-295, { 4(88), 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. (96 Stat.) 1287,
1312. Section 4(88) of the Act also substituted reference to chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of title 5, for reference to the Classification Act of 1949, and substituted
the provision that relevant employees are subject to the provisions of title 5 relating to a
preference eligible described in section 2108(3) of title 5, subchapter I of chapter 81 of
title 5, and subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, for the provision that such employees
shall be subject to the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, laws administered by the
Bureau of Employees’ Compensation applicable to civilian employees of the United
States, and the Civil Service Retirement Act. I d. Section 5(a) of the Act provides that
sections 1-4 “restate, without substantive change, laws enacted before December 2,
1981, that were replaced by those sections.” Id.; see 10 U.S.C. § 101, note. Section
5(a) further provides that sections 1-4 of the Act “may not be construed as making a
substantive change in the laws replaced.”
An amendatory act is not to be construed to change the original act or section
further than expressly declared or necessarily implied. See 1A Sutherland Stat. Const.
§ 22.30 (5th Ed.). Here, Congress expressly declared that section 4(88) of the Act
“restate[s], without substantive change,” 38 U.S.C. § 4202(5) as it existed prior to
December 2, 1981, and that section 4(88) “may not be construed as making a
substantive change” in 38 U.S.C. § 4202(5). This express declaration in the statute is
reinforced in the legislative history of the Act, which provides that the bill “makes no
change in the substance of existing law” except to correct an inadvertent error in the
codification of title 10 in 1956. H.R. Rep. No. 388, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982),
reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2598. Further, the legislative history of the Act provides
that clause (A) of section 4(88) makes “technical and conforming changes.” Id. at 2617.
Construing the Act as a whole, we find that Congress did not intend to make a
substantive change to 38 U.S.C. § 4202(5) when it substituted the language “without
regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service,” for
the broader language “without regard to civil-service laws.” Thus, in accordance with the
statute, we may not construe section 4(88) as making a substantive change to the
earlier language of 38 U.S.C. § 4202(5).
Accordingly, we find that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the
appellant’s position has been excluded from the appointing provisions of title 5 by
separate statutory authority in the absence of any provision placing the appellant within
the coverage of chapter 75, title 5, United States Code. See 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(d)(12).
ORDER
This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(c).
5
NOTICE TO APPELLANT
You have the right to request the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit to review the Board's final decision in your appeal if the court has jurisdiction.
See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). You must submit your request to the court at the following
address:
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place,
Washington, DC 20439
The court must receive your request for review no later than 30 calendar days after
receipt of this order by your representative, if you have one, or receipt by you
personally, whichever receipt occurs first. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1).
For the Board
Robert E. Taylor, Clerk
Washington, D.C.


Bentley v. Veterans Admn 3 MSPR 270, 271 (1980) is posted at
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=252893&version=253180&application=ACROBAT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
RAYMOND K. BENTLEY ^ , , „ Docket No.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION PH075299069
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, Raymond K. Bentley, was discharged during his
probationary period by the Veterans Canteen Service, Veterans
Administration Hospital, respondent, for unacceptable behavior.
Petitioner appealed the termination, but the appeal was dismissed
by the presiding official because it was concluded that the Board
did not have jurisdiction since appellant held an appointment in
the excepted service and was not a preference eligible. A petition
for review of the initial decision was filed by petitioner.
Petitioner has alleged that new evidence is available which warrants
reopening of his case. However, he has not submitted that
evidence or a description of it, and the Board therefore finds that
he has failed to establish compliance with section 1201.115 (a) of
the Board's regulations.
Further, petitioner has made no showing that the decision of the
presiding official was in error as it is clear that the record supports
the presiding official's finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction
over petitioner's appeal.
We note in this connection that 38 U.S.C. 4202 provides in
pertinent part as follows, with respect to the duties of the Administrator
of the Veterans Canteen Service:
The Administrator shall—
(5) employ such persons as are necessary for the establishment,
maintenance, and operation of the Service, and pay
the salaries, wages, and expenses of all such employees from
the funds of the service. Personnel necessary for the transaction
of the business of the Service at canteens, warehouses,
and storage depots shall be appointed, compensated from
funds of the Service, and removed by the Administrator
without regard to civil-service laws and the Classification Act
of 1949. Such employees shall be subject to the Veterans'
Preference Act of 1944, the Civil Service Retirement Act,
and laws administered by the Bureau of Employees' Compensation
applicable to civilian employees of the United States
360
Thus, under the terms of section 4202 (5), petitioner could accede
to the statutory and regulatory rights of appeal provided to
preference eligible employees. Petitioner as a non-preference
eligible would accede to none of these rights, however, and his
removal is therefore within the total control of the Administrator
of the Veterans Canteen Service.
Even if petitioner were a preference eligible, he would not have
been able to appeal to the Board, since 5 U.S.C. 7511 (a) (1) (B)
excludes from the definition of covered employee an individual
such as petitioner, who has not completed one year of current continuous
service in the same or similar position.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. This is the
final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board on this case.
Petitioner is hereby notified of his right to file a civil action in
the U.S. Court of Claims or in the appropriate circuit of the United
States Court of Appeals within 30 days of receipt of this decision.
For the Board:
RoBKtr E. TAYLOR,
Secretary.
Washington, D.C., September 29,1980
361

Edited by N Cal Atty on 8/16/2010 at 8:06 PM EST
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
yes, mspb issued a written opinion. i also read the cases and the statutory cites but it still does not answer my question, if not the MSPB, where do i file complaint to dispute adverse action? like i've said, mspb seems to indicate that secretary of labor, veterans employment and training service, has jurisdiction. but when i checked this, it seems to only apply to veterans, veteran's benefits, or veteran's preference issues. am i wrong?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
hello? are you still working on my problem? Have not heard from you lately, i do not know if you received the reply to the question i emailed earlier.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
Do you have a citation to the opinion in your case?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
i don't understand the question. the citations in the opinion were the statues and cases i already gave you yesterday which you also read. it was in those cases cited in the opinion of the administrative judge that gave me the impression that it is pointing me towards the direction of the dept of labor. specifically, i got it from the chavez case.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
I was asking if it is possible for me to read the opinion in your case.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
oh. you want me to scan it or fax it? where do i send it?
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
You can scan and email it to Attn N Cal Atty c/oXXX@XXXXXX.XXX and the moderators will forward it to me. I'm not allowed to disclose my own email address, but I have had other people get documents to me this way it usually does not take more than a day.

I think if I can read the opinion in your case I'll have a much better idea of the problem.

Thank you.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
i am having my husband scan the relevant pages on jurisdiction (just 2 pages) opinion is quite lengthy so i am not sending entire opinion. he is sending it to the email address you gave as i type so i hope fact that it will come from his email address instead of from mine will not be a problem.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
Hopefully the website will get it to me by tomorrow.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
i will hear from you then
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
It has not gotten to me yet, it's after 5 p.m. but it could still come in today.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
i thought we were able to send it. but this email came back this morning while i was away from home:

rom:XXX@XXXXXX.XXX
To:XXX@XXXXXX.XXX
Sent: 8/17/2010 2:09:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: [#VKU-777098]: Attn. N Cal Atty

Hi,

Can you please provide a link to the question page so we can send the file to the attorney you're working with? There is no account associated with the email address you wrote to us from.

Thank you,


Maria
Experts' Moderator
JustAnswer Support
www.justanswer.com

i dont know to respond to this. is it possible for you to retrieve the scanned opinion from Maria, Experts' moderator?
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
I'll try right now.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
ok
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
I'm sorry it's taking so long but I hope to hear from the moderators by tomorrow. If they need the URL of you question it is
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/3vxhu-a-cook-permanent-grade-4-excepted-employee-with-no-veterans
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
i am under the gun because the deadline the mspb is giving me to prove that mspb has jurisdition is august 26. i need to find out soon if i need to fight the mspb and insist that it has jurisdiction or just file with the correct administrative agency without jeopardizing my right to question the termination. i will wait until tomorrow.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
I'm sorry I have not gotten what you emailed yet.

Did MSPB tell you which agency to appeal to?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
no. if it did, i would have filed my complaint there already. instead, mspb simply said we do not have jurisdiction citing the statutes and cases that i already gave you.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
I received your email and remain uncertain as to the correct procedure. It seems clear that the MSPB opinion appears to be correct and MSPB does not have jurisdiction. I am not sure if any agency does have jurisdiction aside from the U.S. Court of Claims.

My analysis is that you have a claim founded on contract against the VA and you should be able to pursue this in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, see
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/

You can get a free consultation from some of the local contract law attorneys listed at
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/firm/Contracts/Palo-Alto/California

I hope this information is helpful, and I apologize for the delay in getting your email.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
This is a federal court and only based in Washington D.C. (?) I have to go to D.C.?
Is it your opinion that there is NO administrative agency in CA that can hear my complaint? Only in court and only in D.C.? It seems i do not have any other rights than a common private employee as opposed to someone who has been employed by the VA for 8 years. From the direction you are pointing me towards, it seems as if I am not considered as a federal employee, even though I was employed by the VA through a private contractor. If I am a private employee, who should I be suing? the contractor that I do not know or the VA? If it is to the courts that I should go to, why not the federal court or the state court? This is all soooooo confusing.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
I'm confused that you just said you worked for a contractor but previously wrote that you worked for Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto Health Care System Canteen Service.

I'm sorry this is so confusing. Have you spoken with a union rep from American Federation of Government Employees?

Did you work for DVA or for a contractor to DVA?

Who signed your paychecks?

Edited by N Cal Atty on 8/19/2010 at 8:57 AM EST
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
I am sorry. i was NOT employed through a private contractor, it was an assumption i was making because it seems as if the statute that allowed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to appoint personnel to staff the VA canteens, warehouse, etc. could have done so in-house, or contracted out. I am sorry if my frustration is getting the better of me. The person who signs my checks is Lori Perry (Human Resources Officer) of Department of Veterans Affairs. My tenure is "conditional" my FLSA Category is "nonexempt". My employing Department is "Department of Veterans Affairs", position is "cook" , grade level is "4", veterans preference is "none", work schedule "full time".
I spoke to a Union rep but until now I do not know if they actually filed a formal grievance or simply tried to intervene informally. All I know is the Canteen Chief of VA Palo Alto CA Canteen Service recommended my removal and then this was approved and finalized by the Central Office Regional Manager Office of Field Operations in St. Louis MO. I apologize again for any confusion.
Expert:  N Cal Atty replied 4 years ago.
What is confusing is that Congress has created a class of federal employees not under civil service and not under MSPB. I'm afraid your union rep is in a better position to advise you than I am. You may be able to sue in federal court for wrongful termination but there is a big issue of governmental immunity.

All I can suggest is to consult the union, and ask one of the local contract law attorneys listed at
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/firm/Contracts/Palo-Alto/California
for a legal opinion as to what remedies may be available.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Relist: he referred me to a contracts attorney. i'm not even sure if that will help. maybe an administrative law attorney specializing in federal employment .
he referred me to a contracts attorney. i'm not even sure if that will help. maybe an administrative law attorney specializing in federal employment

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
< Last | Next >
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • P. Simmons

    Military Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    11441
    Retired Marine Corps lawyer and Veterans Services Officer (VSO) with 12+ yrs. of experience.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PH/philip.simmons/2012-6-7_161915_BIGPhilipSimmons.64x64.jpg P. Simmons's Avatar

    P. Simmons

    Military Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    11441
    Retired Marine Corps lawyer and Veterans Services Officer (VSO) with 12+ yrs. of experience.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JA/jaccorpsesq/2011-11-13_21141_JAnewphoto.64x64.jpg Allen M., Esq.'s Avatar

    Allen M., Esq.

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    4035
    Lawyer and current JAG officer.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/marshadjd/2009-6-1_194320_marshajd.jpg Marsha411JD's Avatar

    Marsha411JD

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1149
    Licensed attorney and former Navy JAG serving ashore, afloat and at the OJAG
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/OR/OregonLawyer/2012-6-20_82836_LarryMugShot16192012.64x64.jpg Lawrence D. Gorin's Avatar

    Lawrence D. Gorin

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    488
    Military & Family Law. 30+ years experience. USFSPA pension division expertise.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/LawInfoNow/2012-5-27_195417_JAprofilepicture.64x64.jpg LawHelpNow's Avatar

    LawHelpNow

    Attorney/Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    221
    Relax. Let's work together. Practical solutions.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/rcampione/2009-01-16_181009_bar-rc.jpg rcampione's Avatar

    rcampione

    Military Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    186
    Military lawyer - 5 years to the present
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JAGDefense/2010-02-16_041646_web_pix.jpg JAG Defense's Avatar

    JAG Defense

    Military Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    124
    CAPT, JAGC, USN (Retired); Former Military Judge; Specializing in Security Clearance Adjudications