B-136143, JUL. 2, 1958

B-136143: Jul 2, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE CLAIMS ARE FOR OVERTIME PAY AND PENALTY TIME PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING PRACTICES IN THE MARITIME INDUSTRY. WHICH IS THE NEW NAME FOR THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 26. - WERE RENDERED UPON ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST AND ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS CONCERNING OUR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT JURISDICTION. 27 COMP. IS NOT IN POINT SINCE IT INVOLVED SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS (PANAMA CANAL PILOTS) AS EMPLOYEES OF THE FORMER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY KNOWN AS THE PANAMA CANAL. ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS LIABLE TO SUIT IN THAT COURT. WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH CLAIMS AGAINST CORPORATE FUNDS ON WHICH AT NO TIME HERE PERTINENT COULD SUIT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

B-136143, JUL. 2, 1958

TO THOMAS M. GITTINGS, JR., ESQUIRE:

YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1958, WRITTEN IN BEHALF OF RUSSELL DOWNS AND CERTAIN OTHER INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS EMPLOYEES OF THE PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, REQUESTS US TO RECONSIDER THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DECLINING, BY LETTER OF JANUARY 20, 1958, TO YOU, TO CONSIDER THE CLAIMS.

THE CLAIMANTS APPEAR TO BE EMPLOYED ON VESSELS OPERATED BY THE PANAMA CANAL COMPANY (FORMERLY THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY); AND THE CLAIMS ARE FOR OVERTIME PAY AND PENALTY TIME PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING PRACTICES IN THE MARITIME INDUSTRY.

WE DID NOT SETTLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY EITHER DURING ITS EXISTENCE AS A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR AS REINCORPORATED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1948, 62 STAT. 1075; NOR DO WE SETTLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, WHICH IS THE NEW NAME FOR THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1950, 64 STAT. 1038, AS IMPLEMENTED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10263, DATED JUNE 29, 1951. 24 COMP. DEC. 102; 27 COMP. GEN. 429; UNITED STATES EX REL. SKINNER AND EDDY CORP. V. MCCARL, 275 U.S. 1.

THE DECISIONS CITED BY YOU, NAMELY, 30 COMP. GEN. 158, 31 ID. 87 AND 32 ID. 307--- THE LATTER TWO DECISIONS INVOLVING PANAMA CANAL PILOTS, AS EMPLOYEES OF THE PANAMA CANAL COMPANY--- WERE RENDERED UPON ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST AND ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS CONCERNING OUR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT JURISDICTION. 27 COMP. GEN. 429, SUPRA.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN ABBOTT, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 125 C.CLS. 330, IS NOT IN POINT SINCE IT INVOLVED SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS (PANAMA CANAL PILOTS) AS EMPLOYEES OF THE FORMER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY KNOWN AS THE PANAMA CANAL, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS LIABLE TO SUIT IN THAT COURT. WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH CLAIMS AGAINST CORPORATE FUNDS ON WHICH AT NO TIME HERE PERTINENT COULD SUIT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

THE FACT THAT WE AUDIT THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE PANAMA CANAL COMPANY UNDER AUTHORITY OF 31 U.S.C. 850 HAS NO BEARING UPON THE PRESENT MATTER. SEE SKINNER AND EDDY CASE, SUPRA.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE ACTION OF THE CLAIMS DIVISION IN DECLINING TO CONSIDER THE CLAIMS IS SUSTAINED.