B-147339, JUN. 18, 1962
Highlights
OLCZAK'S CLAIM FOR SALARY FOR THE PERIOD THAT HE WAS SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PITTSBURGH. WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON JUNE 4. WAS BASED UPON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE COURT OF CLAIMS THEN AWARDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WATSON BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDED THAT PRIOR TO MAKING THE DISCHARGE EFFECTIVE A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE MUST BE GIVEN A FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS WHY THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION WAS UNSATISFACTORY. MISS WATSON'S DISCHARGE WAS MADE FINAL AND EFFECTIVE WITHOUT GIVING HER SUCH REASONS AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOT INVOLVED ANY ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS.
B-147339, JUN. 18, 1962
TO HANS A. NATHAN, ESQUIRE:
YOUR LETTER OF MAY 25, 1962, CONCERNS OUR PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. CHARLES C. OLCZAK AND WITH THE UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS IN THE MATTER OF MR. OLCZAK'S CLAIM FOR SALARY FOR THE PERIOD THAT HE WAS SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, POST OFFICE. YOU REQUEST THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 24, 1961, IN THIS MATTER, AND DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CASE OF WATSON V. UNITED STATES, 162 F.SUPP. 755, WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON JUNE 4, 1958, JUDGMENT ENTERED JULY 11, 1958, 142 CT.CL. 749, 763.
THAT DECISION, AS POINTED OUT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS' OPINION, WAS BASED UPON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER 14, 1957, 355 U.S. 14, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF SERVICE V. DULLES, 354 U.S. 363. THE COURT OF CLAIMS THEN AWARDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WATSON BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDED THAT PRIOR TO MAKING THE DISCHARGE EFFECTIVE A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE MUST BE GIVEN A FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS WHY THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION WAS UNSATISFACTORY. MISS WATSON'S DISCHARGE WAS MADE FINAL AND EFFECTIVE WITHOUT GIVING HER SUCH REASONS AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, UNTIL SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF HER DISCHARGE.
IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOT INVOLVED ANY ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS. SEE OUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 16, 1961, AND OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 24, 1961, TO MR. WILLIAM E. PRICE, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MR. OLCZAK'S CLAIM. WE POINT OUT THAT EVEN IF THE WATSON CASE BE VIEWED AS APPLICABLE, THERE WOULD BE NO AUTHORITY FOR OUR OFFICE TO ALLOW COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION SINCE MR. OLCZAK WAS NOT IN THE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 652, OR A PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE WHO HAD COMPLETED HIS PROBATIONARY OR TRIAL PERIOD IN THE CIVIL SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 863. WHILE THE COURTS MAY AWARD JUDGMENTS FOR "BACK PAY" BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES WITHOUT REGARD TO ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THAT OUR AUTHORITY IS THAT EXTENSIVE.
THEREFORE, OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 24, 1961, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SAID CLAIM, IS AFFIRMED.