A-6241, DECEMBER 9, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 524

A-6241: Dec 9, 1924

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

IN A GRADE FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES. MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO EFFICIENCY RATINGS AND PROVIDED THE PROMOTED WITHIN THE GRADE FOR WHICH THEY HAVE A CIVIL SERVICE STATUS. 1924: I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5. HAD THE STATUS OF UNCLASSIFIED LABORERS BUT HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO DUTIES AS CHAUFFEURS AND THAT THEIR TOTAL COMPENSATION WAS $960 AND $1. THE POSITIONS WHICH THEY ACTUALLY HELD WERE ALLOCATED TO GRADE 3 OF THE CUSTODIAL SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923. WERE FIXED AT $1. THE EMPLOYEES WERE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN THE POSITIONS TO WHICH THEY WERE ALLOCATED. IT APPEARS THAT THEY WERE PROMOTED ON JULY 3.

A-6241, DECEMBER 9, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 524

CLASSIFICATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES - PROMOTION EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 19, 1924, BY REASON OF ALLOCATION UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923, IN A GRADE FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO EFFICIENCY RATINGS AND PROVIDED THE PROMOTED WITHIN THE GRADE FOR WHICH THEY HAVE A CIVIL SERVICE STATUS, AVERAGE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH ALLOCATED HAS NOT BEEN EXCEEDED.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION IN CHARGE, STATE, WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS, DECEMBER 9, 1924:

I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5, 1924, REQUESTING DECISION WHETHER CLAYTON HARRIS AND WILLIAM L. HILL MAY BE PROMOTED TO $1,080 PER ANNUM.

IT APPEARS THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1924, HAD THE STATUS OF UNCLASSIFIED LABORERS BUT HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO DUTIES AS CHAUFFEURS AND THAT THEIR TOTAL COMPENSATION WAS $960 AND $1,020 PER ANNUM, RESPECTIVELY. THE POSITIONS WHICH THEY ACTUALLY HELD WERE ALLOCATED TO GRADE 3 OF THE CUSTODIAL SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923, HENCE THEIR SALARIES AS OF JULY 1, 1924, WERE FIXED AT $1,020 PER ANNUM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF THE SAID CLASSIFICATION ACT.

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 19, 1924, THE EMPLOYEES WERE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN THE POSITIONS TO WHICH THEY WERE ALLOCATED. IT APPEARS THAT THEY WERE PROMOTED ON JULY 3, 1924, TO $1,080 PER ANNUM BUT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF AUGUST 13, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 174, THEY WERE REDUCED TO $1,020 PER ANNUM WHICH IS THE MINIMUM SALARY OF GRADE CU-3 AND THE SALARY TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED ON JULY 1, 1924, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT.

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, IN A LETTER TO YOU DATED OCTOBER 24, STATES THAT THOUGH THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION MAY NOT LEGALLY BE PROMOTED TO CHAUFFEUR POSITIONS, YET BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 19, 1924, THEY RETAINED THEIR RESTRICTED STATUS AS UNCLASSIFIED LABORERS AND THAT UNDER SUCH STATUS THE COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE PROMOTIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR UNCLASSIFIED LABORERS.

THE APPARENT OBJECT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CITED WAS TO PREVENT AN EMPLOYEE FROM BEING PUT IN A CIVIL SERVICE STATUS OTHER THAN THAT PREVIOUSLY HELD BY HIM AS A RESULT OF HIS ALLOCATION BASED ON THE DUTIES HE WAS PERFORMING PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1924, UNDER A DETAIL WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE RULES AS THEN EXISTING, AND SUCH EFFECT WAS GIVEN TO SAID ORDER IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 13, 1924, SUPRA.

THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE CASE HERE PRESENTED IS WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE ALLOCATED TO A CERTAIN GRADE BECAUSE HIS DUTIES ON JUNE 30, 1924, ARE FOUND IN SAID GRADE, THOUGH HIS CIVIL SERVICE STATUS WOULD HAVE PUT HIM IN ANOTHER GRADE, MAY RECEIVE PROMOTION IN THE GRADE IN WHICH HE HAS A CIVIL SERVICE STATUS, OR WHETHER HE IS RESTRICTED TO THE MINIMUM RATE OF SALARY OF THE GRADE TO WHICH ALLOCATED.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 19, 1924, PROVIDES THAT:

EMPLOYEES WILL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN THE POSITIONS TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923 AND RECEIVE THE COMPENSATION ATTACHING TO SUCH ALLOCATIONS, ALTHOUGH CONTRARY TO EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, BUT SHALL NOT THEREBY BE GIVEN ANY DIFFERENT STATUS FOR PROMOTION OR TRANSFER THAN THEY HAD ACQUIRED UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES PRIOR TO SUCH ALLOCATION.

THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT AN EMPLOYEE ALLOCATED TO A POSITION ON THE BASIS OF DUTIES PERFORMED FOR WHICH HE HAD NOT QUALIFIED UNDER CIVIL SERVICE RULES IS NOT TO HAVE ANY GREATER ADVANTAGES OR DIFFERENT STATUS IN THE MATTER OF PROMOTION OR TRANSFER THAN HE WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD BEEN PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE POSITION FOR WHICH HE HAD QUALIFIED AND HAD BEEN ALLOCATED ACCORDINGLY; ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT THAT SUCH AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE AT A DISADVANTAGE IN RESPECT TO PROMOTION BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF AND HAD BEEN ALLOCATED TO A GRADE ABOVE THAT FOR WHICH HE HAD QUALIFIED UNDER CIVIL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.

IF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD ON JUNE 30, 1924, BEEN PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF UNSKILLED LABORERS FOR WHICH THEY HAD QUALIFIED, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO GRADE 2 OF THE CUSTODIAL SERVICE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO BE PROMOTED IN THAT GRADE, SUBJECT TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT, TO A MAXIMUM SALARY OF $1,140 PER ANNUM. THEY DID NOT LOSE THAT RIGHT BY REASON OF THEIR ALLOCATION TO A HIGHER GRADE.

ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT CLAYTON HARRIS AND WILLIAM L. HILL MAY BE PROMOTED TO $1,080 PER ANNUM PROVIDED THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AS TO EFFICIENCY RATINGS AND THE AVERAGE PROVISION AS APPLICABLE TO GRADE 3 UNDER THE APPROPRIATION UNIT INVOLVED, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE PROMOTED ABOVE $1,040 PER ANNUM UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY QUALIFY FOR APPOINTMENT TO A POSITION UNDER GRADE 3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.