We have held that "a reduction in premium pay" is not a reduction in basic pay. Nigg v. MSPB, 321 F.3d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003). On-call pay is one of these kinds of premium pay.

Premium pay, which is pay in addition to an employee's basic pay, is excluded from this definition. 5 C.F.R. § 752.402 ("Pay means the rate of basic pay . . . before any deductions and exclusive of additional pay of any kind."); Nigg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("By statute, however, the term 'reduction in pay' refers to a reduction in basic pay, not a reduction in premium pay.").

Because postal inspectors were not included in FLEPA, they were not included in LEAP, which basically sought to revise the FLEPA pay regime. See id. § 2105(e)("Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Rate Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title."); see also Nigg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To protect federal agencies from having to pay law enforcement officers both LEAP and FLSA overtime, Congress amended the FLSA to exempt officers who received LEAP from receiving FLSA overtime.

Because postal inspectors were not included in FLEPRA, they were not included in LEAP, which basically sought to revise the FLEPRA pay regime. See id. § 2105(e) ("Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Rate Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title."); see also Nigg v. Merit Sys. Prot, Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To protect federal agencies from having to pay law enforcement officers both LEAP and FLSA overtime, Congress amended the FLSA to exempt officers who received LEAP from receiving FLSA overtime.

To be eligible for judicial review, the postal employee must be "a preference-eligible employee, a management or supervisory employee, or an employee engaged in personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity." Nigg v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "Preference-eligible" refers to veterans of the armed services and, in certain circumstances, their close relatives.

Our precedent has "long distinguished between 'basic pay' and 'premium pay,' such as overtime or night differential." Nigg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A denial of premium pay is not a reduction in pay that is appealable to the Board.

"By statute . . . the term `reduction in pay' refers to a reduction in basic pay, not a reduction in premium pay." Nigg v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, "bonus or premium pay is not part of basic pay and . . . the loss of or reduction in such pay is not appealable to the Board as a reduction in pay."

By statute, the Postal Service is specifically excluded from the application of section 6323. See 5 U.S.C. § 2105(e) ("Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service . . . is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title."); Nigg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The provisions of Title 5 do not apply to the Postal Service unless Congress has specifically so provided."); Bacashihua v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 811 F.2d 1498, 1501 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("[T]he Postal Service [is] an independent establishment of the executive branch with very limited application of federal employee law."). Because section 6323 is inapplicable to Postal Service employees, nothing in Butterbaugh prohibits the Postal Service from charging non-workdays against its employees' military leave.

"By statute . . . the term `reduction in pay' refers to a reduction in basic pay, not a reduction in premium pay." Nigg v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, "bonus or premium pay is not part of basic pay and . . . the loss of or reduction in such pay is not appealable to the Board as a reduction in pay."

Moreover, "a denial of premium pay does not constitute a reduction in pay that is appealable to the Board." Nigg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 321 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Mattern v. Dep't of the Treasury, 291 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Caven's argument is similar to one the Supreme Court rejected in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976).