B-155014, DEC. 11, 1964
Highlights
IN WHICH WE CONCLUDED THAT UPON THE PRESENT RECORD NO BASIS EXISTED FOR OUR ALLOWING THE POSTAL EMPLOYEES YOU WERE REPRESENTING COMPENSATION FOR THE FOUR HOURS THEY ATTENDED THE BIDDING SESSION JANUARY 20. YOU CITE CERTAIN COURT CASES IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT THE BIDDING SESSION FOR VACANT POSITIONS WAS IN THE CATEGORY OF WORK AND. WE DO NOT REGARD SUCH CASES AS APPLICABLE HERE SINCE THEY INVOLVED QUESTIONS OF WHETHER EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ACTIVITIES PERFORMED AFTER THE NORMAL WORKING HOURS. WHEREAS TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE NORMAL WORKDAY OR WEEK GENERALLY IS NOT SO REGARDED FOR OVERTIME PAY PURPOSES UNLESS PERFORMED UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS.
B-155014, DEC. 11, 1964
TO MR. DAVID S. KAPLAN:
YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 13, 1964, REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 30, 1964, TO YOU, IN WHICH WE CONCLUDED THAT UPON THE PRESENT RECORD NO BASIS EXISTED FOR OUR ALLOWING THE POSTAL EMPLOYEES YOU WERE REPRESENTING COMPENSATION FOR THE FOUR HOURS THEY ATTENDED THE BIDDING SESSION JANUARY 20, 1963, AT THE JAMAICA, NEW YORK, POST OFFICE OR FOR AUTHORIZING RESTITUTION OF FOUR HOURS ANNUAL LEAVE.
YOU CITE CERTAIN COURT CASES IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT THE BIDDING SESSION FOR VACANT POSITIONS WAS IN THE CATEGORY OF WORK AND, THEREFORE, NOT CHARGEABLE TO ANNUAL LEAVE. WE DO NOT REGARD SUCH CASES AS APPLICABLE HERE SINCE THEY INVOLVED QUESTIONS OF WHETHER EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ACTIVITIES PERFORMED AFTER THE NORMAL WORKING HOURS, WHEREAS THE PRESENT MATTER INVOLVES ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE NORMAL WORKING HOURS. FOR EXAMPLE, TRAVEL PERFORMED DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS HAS ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED AS PART OF SUCH HOURS, WHEREAS TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE NORMAL WORKDAY OR WEEK GENERALLY IS NOT SO REGARDED FOR OVERTIME PAY PURPOSES UNLESS PERFORMED UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS. SEE 5 U.S.C. 912B.
ORDINARILY, WE DO NOT QUESTION THE DETERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF AN AGENCY AS TO WHAT ACTIVITY MAY OR MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A PART OF OFFICIAL DUTIES. AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT THE BIDDING SESSION WAS NOT OFFICIAL DUTY AND WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT SUCH DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE ..END :