B-173235, NOV 22, 1971
Highlights
SLEEPING AND EATING IS NONCOMPENSABLE EVEN WHERE THE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES. SINCE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE HOURS DEDUCTED FOR EATING AND SLEEPING WERE REASONABLE AND THAT CLAIMANT WAS PAID FOR HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED THE CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DENIED. ORME: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 15. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 29. YOU SPECIFICALLY CONTEND THAT SINCE YOU WERE ORDERED TO WORK FOR SEVERAL 24-HOUR PERIODS ON DIFFERENT WEEKENDS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AS DUTY OFFICER IN COMPLETE CHARGE OF OPERATIONS OF THE CONSERVATION CENTER. THIS TECHNICALLY MEANT THAT YOU COULD NOT LEAVE THE CENTER AND HENCE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION EVEN DURING PERIODS YOU NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN EATING AND SLEEPING.
B-173235, NOV 22, 1971
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - OVERTIME COMPENSATION - STAND-BY DUTY DECISION SUSTAINING DENIAL BY CLAIMS DIVISION OF A CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED AS A DUTY OFFICER AT THE FRENCHBURG CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER, DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST. IT HAS LONG BEEN THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT TIME AVAILABLE FOR, OR SPENT, SLEEPING AND EATING IS NONCOMPENSABLE EVEN WHERE THE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES. RAPP V UNITED STATES AND HAWKINS V UNITED STATES, 167 CT. CL. 852 (1964), 340 F. 2D 635. SINCE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE HOURS DEDUCTED FOR EATING AND SLEEPING WERE REASONABLE AND THAT CLAIMANT WAS PAID FOR HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED THE CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DENIED.
TO MR. WILLIAM T. ORME:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 15, 1970, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED BY YOU DURING THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 7, 1965, TO MARCH 12, 1966, AS DUTY OFFICER AT THE FRENCHBURG CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER, DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 29, 1970.
YOU SPECIFICALLY CONTEND THAT SINCE YOU WERE ORDERED TO WORK FOR SEVERAL 24-HOUR PERIODS ON DIFFERENT WEEKENDS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AS DUTY OFFICER IN COMPLETE CHARGE OF OPERATIONS OF THE CONSERVATION CENTER, THIS TECHNICALLY MEANT THAT YOU COULD NOT LEAVE THE CENTER AND HENCE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION EVEN DURING PERIODS YOU NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN EATING AND SLEEPING. THE PERTINENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM WERE STATED IN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 29, 1970, AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHETHER THE TIME AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR EATING AND SLEEPING DURING THE PERIOD REFERRED TO IS COMPENSABLE, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REMAIN AT THE CENTER.
IT HAS LONG BEEN THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT TIME AVAILABLE FOR, OR SPENT, SLEEPING AND EATING IS NONCOMPENSABLE EVEN WHERE THE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES. RAPP V UNITED STATES AND HAWKINS V UNITED STATES, 167 CT. CL. 852 (1964), 340 F. 2D 635, AND THE NUMEROUS CASES CITED THEREIN. THE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE IS WHERE SUBSTANTIAL LABOR IS PERFORMED IN THE TIME SET ASIDE FOR SLEEPING AND EATING. FARLEY V UNITED STATES, 131 CT. CL. 776 (1955), 127 F. SUPP. 562, AND ENGLAND, ET AL. V UNITED STATES, 133 CT. CL. 768 (1956), 137 F. SUPP. 757.
THE REPORT FURNISHED THIS OFFICE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY SHOWS THAT THE HOURS DEDUCTED FOR SLEEPING AND EATING ARE REASONABLE AND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID FOR HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED DURING YOUR TOURS OF STANDBY DUTY.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DENYING YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL OVERTIME COMPENSATION IS SUSTAINED.