allocation powers among the various grades as set forth above. In fact, the manner of such distribution, as necessitated by the decision of your office, is so haphazard and unsystematic as to preclude any conclusion that such was the legislative intent. Further, in the legislative history of the act of May 28, 1928, nothing can be found leading to the belief that any such radical change of policy was requested of Congress by anyone or that it was even contemplated by the legislative members.

It is further respectfully submitted that it is unreasonable to hold that section 1 of the act of May 28. 1928, annuls the board's jurisdiction over allocations to certain grades in the face of the fact that section 2 of the act initiates a survey looking toward enlargement of the board's jurisdiction to include the field services.

In reaching the conclusion that Congress intended, in the respects previously mentioned, to restrict the operations, jurisdiction, and discretion of the Personnel Classification Board, your office evidently relied upon the paragraph of the amended schedules that provides that where the basic qualifications of a grade have been given a higher number, positions in that grade should be advanced to the higher-numbered grade.

As there is nothing in this paragraph which confers any powers upon department heads, it is assumed that in reaching the conclusion that discretion was to be exercised by department heads, such, for example, as determining whether cld P. 5 positions should be placed in new grade P. 6 or P. 7, it was considered that the following language in the preceding paragraph was applicable to this "basic qualifications" provision also:

"The heads of the several executive departments and independent establishments of the Government whose duty it is to carry into effect the provisions of this act are hereby directed." etc.

It will be noted that the direction is to certain heads of executive departments and independent establishments.

The language "whose duty it is" distinguishes between certain department heads who do and certain department heads who do not have the duty of carrying into effect the provisions of the classification act, according as their establishments are or are not included within the jurisdiction of the board, as defined in section 2 of the classification act of 1923. It also refers to an existing duty assigned to certain heads of departments by some previous mandate, not to a duty imposed for the first time by the amendatory statute. The language is purely descriptive; it does not grant any authority which previously did not exist. The section in which the language occurs being simply a substitute for section 13 of the classification act, the words "this act" refers to the classification act of 1923, including all its sections as well as that containing the compensation schedules.

Thus the language gives rise to no vesting of new authority in the heads of departments. The " duty" referred to is that defined by the classification act and is subject to the authority and control of the Personnel Classification Board, as likewise defined in that act. There is nothing in this language which modifies or changes in any way the assignment or distribution of administrative duties and responsibilities as made in the original act of 1923.

Since the language of the provision in question does not in specific terms modify or annul the provisions of the original act that defined the functions and powers of the board, a reasonable construction will not admit of the conclusion that certain duties of the board have been transferred elsewherea conclusion sharply in conflict with those original provisions, particularly as another conclusion which will be in harmony with all administrative provisions of the original act and which will give due effect to the provisions of the amendatory statute can more logically be reached.

It appears to be the view of your office that terms used in defining grades must be given an absolute meaning, and that such absolute meaning as determined for the terms of the original schedules must be applied in interpreting the amended schedules.

Consider your decision as to the application of the paragraph in the new act which requires that employees be placed in the same relative position in the new grade ranges as they now occupy in the old grade ranges.

There it was necessary to determine upon the place in a 6-step grade that could be considered the same as the present place in a 7-step grade. Of course, an absolute and individual correspondence among the old and the new rates could not be arrived at and two places in the one had to be considered similar to one place in the other, an inevitable result of condensing seven

places into six. In applying the definitions of the new grades, practically the opposite situation obtains. Four old grades in the C. A. F. service, for example, must be expanded into five new grades, and instead of a telescoping, as in the rate situation, there must be a pulling apart not with absolutely technical application of terms, but under a reasonable application according to a broad view of the entire service concerned, from positions of least importance to those of greatest importance.

66

It will be apparent upon most casual inspection that the definitions of the various grades are not specific. Such terms as "large," "small," and "moderate sized," specialized subject matter," difficult," "most difficult," "very difficult," "responsible." "extended experience," "independent judgment," etc., have no absolute meaning that can be applied with arithmetical or even rhetorical exactness. Before one may invest the word "large" with a definite meaning, one must also determine upon a comparative meaning for "small" and "moderate sized." In the process of determining what shall be considered "specialized subject matter" one must also determine what is not "specialized subject matter"; to determine what shall be considered "most difficult," one must determine what is merely "difficult" and what "very difficult." Furthermore, many of the terms used in defining grades must be interpreted after consideration of the whole group of positions within the scope of the classification act. What may be considered a large organization unit in one bureau or department may appear relatively small when organization units in all bureaus and departments are brought into comparison. Likewise, the terms “complex.” “difficult," etc., as applied to subject matter, may convey a different meaning when the whole range of complexity and difficulty as represented by the work of all departments is taken into account from that which would be associated with it if only some part of the whole, such as the work of a single department, were considered as representing the whole of the range dealt with. The meaning of the various descriptive terms used can be developed only by a comparative process, and the meaning to be attached to the language descriptive of a particular grade must be arrived at by considering its relation to the descriptive language in other grades, particularly those immediately above and below it, and by considering also the facts regarding the duties of the entire group of positions within the scope of the compensation schedules.

Hence, the language descriptive of each grade in the amended schedules must reasonably be interpreted in its relation to the language in other grades as applied to the whole body of facts.

Specifically, then, what the language descriptive of grades P. 4, P. 5, C. A. F. 11, and C. A. F. 12 of the amended schedules shall be interpreted to mean as applied to individual positions requires consideration not merely of the specific terms used therein, but also of the language descriptive of other grades, particularly those immediately below and above them; not merely its correspondence with certain language descriptive of grades in the original schedules, but more particularly with reference to the grade descriptions in the amended schedules. Thus the correspondence between the old and the new grades on the basis of whether their basic qualifications are the same can not be determined by a mere visual inspection of the language used.

The term "grade" as defined in the original act is as follows:

"Grade' means a subdivision of a service, including one or more positions for which approximately the same basic qualifications and compensation are prescribed, the distinction between grades being based upon differences in the importance, difficulty, responsibility, and value of the work."

It must in reason be assumed that as the original schedule was designed to cover the whole range of positions in a particular service from the highest to the lowest, similarly the amended schedule is designed to cover the whole range and that each grade represents a different level of difficulty, importance, responsibility, and value. Obviously, therefore, it was intended by Congress that positions allocable to P. 4 and C. A. F. 11 of the amended schedule must be of greater importance and difficulty than those in P. 3 and C. A. F. 10, and of less importance and difficulty than those allocable to P. 5 and C. A. F. 12.

The language descriptive of P. 3 in the amended schedule is the same as the language descriptive of P. 3 in the original schedule. The language descriptive of P. 5 in the amended schedule is the same as the language descriptive of P. 4 in the original schedule.

Consequently, if it is held that the same interpretation must be placed identical terms, whether used in describing the old grades or the new grade

then there are no positions to which the description of the new grades P. 4 and C. A. F. 11 will apply, for the new P. 3 would thus coincide in scope with the old P. 3, and the existing group of next higher positions, old P. 4, would be lifted bodily to new P. 5. This result is entirely inconsistent with the fundamental fact that as defined in the original act the several grades represent successive levels of importance and difficulty. It is also at striking variance with the established rule of construction that each provision of the law must be given its due effect. Certainly a conclusion that would require disregarding the existence of two entire grades, P. 4 and C. A. F. 11, and all their descriptive language can not be held to be a reasonable one. Congress must have intended that some positions should be placed in P. 4 and C. A. F. 11; otherwise there would have been no reason for setting up these grades and generally describing their content.

The board's view is, therefore, that the question of what are the "basic qualifications" of the several grades in the amended schedules is to be determined through a comparison and an interpretation of the descriptive language of each grade on the basis of its relation to the language descriptive of the other amended grades and not solely upon the correspondence of such language in whole or in part to language in a particular grade in the original schedules; that such comparison and interpretation must involve consideration of the facts with respect to the duties of all positions coming within the scope of the compensation schedules; tha the board, which is the agency designated by the terms of the original act to perform this function, and the only agency which has been authorized to collect and which has in its possession all of the facts as to duties upon which the interpre.ation must depend, is the agency which finally must determine what that interpretation shall be in its application to individual positions through the process of review and revision of allocations made by depar ment heads as laid down in the original act. The last paragraph of section 1 of the act of May 28, 1928, which we have spoken of as the "basic qualifications provision," does not thus automatically take effect upon a mere visual comparison of the language of the old and the new schedules, but its applicability depends upon a finding by the board, through the processes indicated, that the basic qualifications of a former grade have or have not in fact become the basic qualifications of one of the amended grades. The phrase that employees are "by this act" advanced is not inconsistent with this interpretation, because the advancement is in any event dependent upon a finding which perforce must be made by some agency in authority that the basic qualifications of an already existing grade are by the act in fact made the basic qualifications of a higher grade.

The very fact that your office in its recently promulgated ruling stated that department heads might, under the language used in the act, allocate positions now in grade P. 5 to either P. 6 or P. 7 and positions now in C. A. F. 13, to either C. A. F. 14 or C. A. F. 15, depending upon which of these higher grades more specifically describes the duties of the position." is acknowledgment that such language is not absolute, specific, and automatically applicable, but on the other hand requires in erpretation. This prompts the further observation that if Congress had not expected a controlling and uniformly applicable interpretation by the board it would have undertaken more clearly to define the positions to be included in each of the grades.

There is no language in the act of May 28, 1928, which in specific terms modifies or curtails the functions of the board wi h respect to the interpretation and final application of the grade definitions to individual positions through the process of final allocation. In the absence of such specific language, every effort must be made to reconcile an apparent repugnancy which, if effect is given to it. would do such violence to a well established administrative system. It is submitted that a reasonable construction will not admit of a conclusion that repeals by implication important and general administrative provisions of the original act, particularly when the construction, explained above, which is in harmony with all the administrative provisions of the original and amendatory acts, can be more reasonably reached, both statutes thus reconciled, and both thus administered together.

Certain aspects of the decision of your office to which your careful consideration is invited are these:

1. Your decision holds that positions now in P. 4 advance to the new P. 5. on the ground that the same language describes P. 5 of the amended schedule as described P. 4 of the original schedule. Quite the opposite position is taken, however, with respect to the next higher grade. P. 6 of the amended schedule

describes certain types of positions in language identical with that used in the original P. 5 for the same types of positions; viz, "to act as head of a small professional or scientific organization, or to serve as consulting specialist, or independently to plan, organize, and conduct investigations in original research or development work in a professional, scientific, or technical field." Nevertheless it is held by your office in this instance that the language is not automatically controlling and that either P. 6 or P. 7 of the amended schedules may be interpreted to include former P. 5 positions. Your decision recognizes a discretion on the part of department heads to determine which of the two higher grades "more specifically describes the duties of the position," and no review or revision of the exercise of that discretion is intimated. In other words, identity of language as between old P. 4 and new P. 5, precludes discretion on the part of the department head, but identity of language as between old P. 5 and new P. 6, describing certain types of positions more specifically than any described in old P. 4 or new P. 5, does not preclude such discretion. Certainly, if identical language does not force allocations of positions now in P. 5 to the new P. 6, then identical language need not force allocations of positions now in P. 4 to the new P. 5.

2. Even if it were admitted that where a grade in the original schedules is described in identically the same language as a higher grade in the amended schedules, all positions in the old grade are to be advanced to the higher grade, either by automatic operation of the act as held in your ruling, or through allocation by the board according to our view, it would not follow that all positions now in C. A. F. 11 are to advance to the new C. A. F. 12, because the "basic qualifications" of C. A. F. 11 are not by the act of May 28, 1928, made the "basic qualifications" of new C. A. F. 12.

The two grade descriptions read as follows, phraseology in which differences occur being in italic:

OLD GRADE 11

Grade 11, in this service, which may be referred to as the assistant chief administrative grade, shall include all classes of positions, the duties of which are to perform the most difficult and responsible office work along specialized and technical lines, requiring extended training and experience, the exercise of independent judgment, and the assumption of responsibility for results, or to supervise the general bustne & operations of an executive department, or to supervise a large and important office organization engaged on work involving extended training and considerable experience on the part of the employees.

NEW GRADE 12

Grade 12 in this service, which may be referred to as the head administrative grade, shall include all classes of positions, the duties of which are to perform the most difficult and responsible office work along specialized and technical lines requiring extended training and experience, the exercise of independent judgment, and the assumption of full responsibility for results, or to supervise a large and important office organization engaged in work involving extended training and experience on the part of the employees.

in particular it will be observed that whereas old grade C. A. F. 11 includes the phrase "the assumption of responsibility for results," the new grade C. A. F. 12 requires "the assumption of full responsibility for results," and that whereas the old grade C. A. F. 11 requires the supervision of "a large and important office organization engaged in work involving extended training and considerable experience on the part of the employees," the new grade 12 requires "extended training and (extended) experience" on the part of employees, thus making a measurable distinction between the two descriptions. The distinction between what is “considerable experience" upon the part of employees and what "extended experience" is not susceptible of mathematical determination. It is a matter of judgment to be arrived at by the allocating authority after consideration of the interpretation placed on phrases of similar import varying only in degree found in other grades and as actually applied in existing allocations.

That there is a difference between the basic qualifications of old C. A. F. 11 and new C. A. F. 12 is clear. It lies in the degree of responsibility assumed or the character of work supervised as reflected by the qualifications required of

employees. This difference existing, it is not easily seen that the "basic qualifications" provision is at once applicable.

4. With the conclusion in mind that the description of these grades in the C. A. F. service requires a subdivision of the positions now allocated to C. A. F. 11, what then shall be said with respect to grade P. 4?

Can it reasonably be assumed that having clearly provided for subdivision of the corresponding grade, C. A. F. 11 in the C. A. F. service, the Congress intended not to subdivide P. 4 though the grades formerly had the same range and though in the amended schedules are found grades P. 4 and P. 5, with ranges identical to those fixed for C. A. F. 11 and C. A. F. 12 in those schedules. If one proceeds on the theory that descriptive terms in these schedules, when standing alone, have some absolute meaning and that terms used in the original schedules' must have the identical meaning in the amended schedules, then he is forced to this conclusion: That Congress intended that an existing group of positions in C. A. F. 11 should be subdivided into two groups, covered by the new grades C. A. F. 11 and 12, and that an existing group of positions in P. 4 should not be so subdivided but should all advance to P. 5; and this notwithstanding the fact that C. A. F. 11 and P. 4 have now the same range and that there appears two new grades in each service, one with a range of $3,800 to $4,400 and one with a range of $4.600 to $5.200, which when combined form practically the same range as that formerly covered by the old grades. The unsoundness of such a conclusion is apparent.

The practical effect of the conclusion that both groups C. A. F. 11 and P. 4 advance to new C. A. F. 12 and P. 5, aside from making vacant the new grades C. A. F. 11 and P. 4, is to increase the compensation of employees now at the bottom rates of those grades $800, as compared with an increase of $200 for those similarly placed in the grades immediately below and $400 for those in the grades immediately above, increases wholly disproportionate. The practical effect of the conclusion that the C. A. F. 11 group shall be subdivided and the P. 4 group not subdivided is to increase employees in P. 4 so situated $800 and not those in C. A. F. 11, which is still farther from a satisfactory result.

If the board's view is adopted that the grades should be subdivided, and that the new grade definitions are for interpretation by the board in their relation to other grades in the amended schedules these inconsistencies and injustices disappear.

5. Attention is now drawn to that provision of the amended schedules which reads:

"Provided further, That nothing contained in this act shall operate to decrease the pay of any present employee, nor deprive any employee of any advancement authorized by law and for which funds are available."

Under the construction that all positions in C. A. F. 11 and P. 4 are to advance to C. A. F. 12 and P. 5 and that positions in all higher grades advance to the next higher grade there is no situation of which the board can conceive in which an employee by the operation of the act would suffer a decrease in compensation. Hence, under that construction this provision has no application and is entirely superfluous. But under a reasonable rule of construction every provision of the act must be assumed to be necessary and to have some definite application.

It is only under such a construction of these provisions of the amended schedules as is placed thereon by the board that the purpose of this provision becomes apparent and that it can be given effect. When positions now in grades C. A. F. 11 and P. 4 are subdivided, some being placed in the new grades C. A. F. 11 and P. 4, and some in the new grades C. A. F. 12 and P. 5, it may occur that the present salaries of some of the employees allocated to these lower grades are in excess of the maximum rates for those grades, and under the provisions of the original act would necessarily be reduced to that maximum. The obvious intent of the provision quoted was, therefore, that Congress having this possibility in mind desired to permit "present employees' to remain at those salaries even though they were above the new grade maximum. The object was to allow the adjustment of the reallocations incident to the splitting of P. 4 and C. A. F. 11, without compelling salary reductions of incumbents already allocated to the $3,800-$5,000 range.

6. If the view expressed by your office is to govern, many new questions will arise for which the new act provides no answer. Among them are the following: