Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ November 6, 1998 ______________________ GSBCA 14667-RELO In the Matter of HAROLD S. RUBINSTEIN Harold S. Rubinstein, Richmond, VA, Claimant. Donald M. Suica and David K. Barnes, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Treasury. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, Mr. Harold S. Rubinstein, is an employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asks that we review his agency's denial of a claim for certain relocation expenses. IRS moves that we dismiss this case. The agency contends that we are without jurisdiction to settle the claim because Mr. Rubinstein is a member of a bargaining unit and resolution of his claim is exclusively subject to a collective bargaining agreement between IRS and the claimant's union. We grant the motion. Background On June 23, 1997, IRS issued to claimant a certificate of expected separation (CES). The CES was issued in anticipation of a reduction in force (RIF) tentatively scheduled for November of the same year. The CES encouraged Mr. Rubinstein to begin searching for employment elsewhere within the federal government or the private sector. It assured him that the agency would continue to afford eligible employees career transition services and selection priority for any vacancies in or outside the commuting area for which those employees apply and are determined to be well-qualified. At the time Mr. Rubinstein received his CES, he was working at the IRS office in Sacramento, California. Upon receiving his CES, he began applying for positions in Northern California and elsewhere. In August 1997, he was offered and accepted a position as personnel specialist in the agency's district office in Richmond, Virginia. Sometime prior to the issuance of the certificates of expected separation to employees such as Mr. Rubinstein, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and the IRS entered into a collective bargaining agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to avoid a RIF, if possible, by agreeing to a series of pre- RIF activities which would enable employees to voluntarily rather than involuntarily be separated or reassigned to continuing positions. Among the various provisions in the agreement is one which provides that any employee having received a CES who is selected for an announced full-time IRS vacancy to either a lateral position or voluntary change to a lower grade will receive various relocation benefits such as moving expenses and temporary quarters allowance. The agreement also provides for the resolution of disputes through the use of negotiated grievance procedures. No exception is made in this regard for the resolution of disputes such as that which subsequently arose between Mr. Rubinstein and the IRS over certain relocation benefits. Mr. Rubinstein, as a member of the NTEU, took advantage of the benefits offered under the bargaining agreement. Upon arrival at his new permanent duty station in Richmond, he submitted a claim for relocation expenses. Not all of his claim was allowed. He appealed the disallowances to the Chief of the Beckley Administrative Services Center in West Virginia. The appeal was denied on July 14, 1998. In denying the appeal, the Director of the Administrative Services Center noted: Hopefully this has answered your questions. If not, and you wish a further review, your information may be sent to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals. On August 10, 1998, Mr. Rubinstein filed his claim at this Board. On August 27, however, IRS filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that resolution of the claim is exclusively subject to the collective bargaining agreement between the IRS and the NTEU. In bringing the motion, the agency readily admited that the advice previously provided to Mr. Rubinstein by an IRS official that he could appeal to this Board was regretfully incorrect. On September 1, the Board granted claimant thirty days to file an opposition to the IRS motion to dismiss. On September 17, in response to a request from claimant, the Board extended the reply date to November 2. On October 27, Mr. Rubinstein filed his opposition to the IRS motion. On November 2, IRS filed a reply to this opposition. Discussion In numerous cases similar to this one, we have held that the Civil Service Reform Act plainly provides that, for federal employees whose grievances are not excluded from collective bargaining agreements, the agreements are the only administrative procedures available for resolving grievances. Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA 29,091; accord Bernard F. Anderson, GSBCA 14438-TRAV, 98-2 BCA 29,924; William A. Rogers, GSBCA 14357-TRAV (Feb. 12, 1998); Claudia J. Fleming- Howlett, GSBCA 14236-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,534; Larry D. Morrill, GSBCA 13925-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,528; True L. Carter, GSBCA 14131- TRAV, et al., 98-1 BCA 29,530; Brian S. Brame, GSBCA 14333-TRAV (Jan. 7, 1998); Henry E. Carroll, Jr., GSBCA 14206-TRAV (Dec. 29, 1997); William A. Watkins, GSBCA 13970-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,222; see also Dunklebarger v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 96- 3200 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 1997). In short, if a claim can be resolved by using a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedures, then this Board lacks the authority to settle it. Only if the agreement should explicitly and unambiguously exclude the disputed matter from its procedures would we have the authority to resolve it. That clearly has not occurred in this case. Nothing in the agreement suggests such an exclusion and, indeed, Mr. Rubinstein himself, in opposing the motion to dismiss, nevertheless notes that he has alerted the NTEU office and filed a timely grievance. He has acted wisely, for we clearly have no authority to resolve this dispute. The agency's motion is granted. This case is dismissed. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge