B-146009, JUL. 26, 1961
Highlights
IS BASED UPON ADVICE INFORMALLY FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION. POST HAS NO DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF EMPLOYEES WHILE THEY ARE SERVING AS DUTY OFFICERS. THAT SUCH TIME SPENT IN EATING AND SLEEPING IS NOT COMPENSABLE. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS AND NOTHING IS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 2. SO LONG AS THE OFFICIALS OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION MAINTAIN THE POSITION THAT THE DUTY INVOLVED WAS NOT ORDERED OR APPROVED OR. UNTIL A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION DECIDES THAT OCDM EMPLOYEES WERE IN FACT ORDERED TO PERFORM THESE DUTIES OUR OFFICE CAN TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN THE MATTER.
B-146009, JUL. 26, 1961
TO MR. KONSTANTINE V. SAKOVICH:
ON JULY 2, 1961, YOU AGAIN WROTE TO OUR OFFICE CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE HOURS YOU SERVED AS DUTY OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION, REGION 7, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA, IN ADDITION TO YOUR REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY WITH THAT REGION.
OUR STATEMENT IN OUR LETTER TO YOU OF JUNE 22, 1961, B-146009, CONCERNING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MR. ROY I. POST, IS BASED UPON ADVICE INFORMALLY FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, OCDM, TO THE EFFECT THAT MR. POST HAS NO DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF EMPLOYEES WHILE THEY ARE SERVING AS DUTY OFFICERS. INCIDENTALLY, REGARDING TIME IN A STANDBY STATUS THE COURT OF CLAIMS RULED IN THE CASE OF AHEARN, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 332 -55, DECIDED OCTOBER 5, 1960, THAT SUCH TIME SPENT IN EATING AND SLEEPING IS NOT COMPENSABLE. THEREFORE, RECORDS OF NIGHT DUTY MUST REFLECT THE TIME SO SPENT.
THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS AND NOTHING IS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 2, 1961, WHICH JUSTIFIES REVERSAL OF OUR PREVIOUS POSITION IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, SO LONG AS THE OFFICIALS OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION MAINTAIN THE POSITION THAT THE DUTY INVOLVED WAS NOT ORDERED OR APPROVED OR, IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, UNTIL A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION DECIDES THAT OCDM EMPLOYEES WERE IN FACT ORDERED TO PERFORM THESE DUTIES OUR OFFICE CAN TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN THE MATTER. IN THE CASE OF ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 136 CT.CL. 365, WHICH YOU CITE IN YOUR LETTER, THE COURT FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT SUCH DUTY WAS ORDERED AND APPROVED.
THE ATTACHMENTS PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED WHICH YOU REQUESTED TO BE RETURNED ARE ENCLOSED.