Claim for Standby Overtime Compensation

An employee requested reconsideration of the denial of his claim for standby overtime compensation. He contended that his employment required him to live in Government housing and that he was ordered to remain at his duty post after duty hours on a 24-hour basis. The agency confirmed that the employee was at one time required to live in Government housing. However, the administrative report indicated that employees in that district who lived in Government housing were not required to remain at or near their residences or duty posts after their regularly scheduled tour of duty. Although they were subject to call for emergency duty and required to leave a telephone number where they could be reached, the employees who lived in Government housing were free to spend time outside duty hours as they pleased. The claim was originally denied because the employee was not required to stay at his duty post after regularly scheduled duty hours, and his time when not on duty might be spent as he pleased. In his appeal, he submitted excerpts from a 1976 inspection report which indicated that employee occupants of the housing project in which he resided were on call outside regular duty hours. He further stated that he was never notified that he need not remain near or at his duty post and that his work schedule included standby call each weekend, 24 hours per day. Since the claim was received by GAO on July 18, 1978, the portion of the claim prior to July 18, 1972 was barred from consideration by the 6-year statute of limitations. It was the opinion of GAO that the documents submitted as evidence by the employee to support his claim were merely descriptive of his duties and did not constitute a directive restricting him to his residence. While the documents supported his claim that he was expected to be available outside duty hours, none indicated that the availability requirement restricted him to his residence or precluded him from leaving a telephone number where he could be reached. There was no evidence that the overtime severely restricted the employee's activities. Under applicable legislation, an employee is not entitled to premium pay unless his activities are severely restricted. Thus, GAO held that the employee was not entitled premium pay. Accordingly, the prior decision was sustained.