B-142779, JUN. 20, 1960
Highlights
TO THE CHIEF OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: WE HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION THE ATTACHED FILES CONCERNING THE CLAIMS OF MARION L. THE CLAIMANTS CONTEND THAT THEY WERE IN A STANDBY SERVICE STATUS AND. THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THEY WERE ABOARD THE VESSEL UNDER THE "TWO- THIRDS RULE" OF THE REGULATIONS NCPI 85. PARAGRAPH NCPI 85.4-3F (1) PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES ON TRIAL TRIPS (SHAKEDOWN OR OTHER SEA TRIALS) OF VESSELS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PERFORMING TRAVEL. THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN A STANDBY STATUS FROM TIME OF EMBARKATION TO TIME OF DISEMBARKATION. THE SHIPYARD REPORTS THESE CLAIMANTS WERE PAID FOR THE ACTUAL HOURS WORKED. THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE TRAVEL ORDERS ERRONEOUSLY WERE ISSUED.
B-142779, JUN. 20, 1960
TO THE CHIEF OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS:
WE HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION THE ATTACHED FILES CONCERNING THE CLAIMS OF MARION L. MYERS AND CHARLES LEE, FOR ADDITIONAL OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIODS OF DUTY, OCTOBER 2 TO 28, AND NOVEMBER 2 TO 7, 1959, ABOARD THE U.S.S. ABILITY (MSO-519), AS EMPLOYEES OF THE CHARLESTON NAVAL SHIPYARD, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
THE INVOLVED TRAVEL ORDERS, AND MODIFICATIONS THEREOF, SHOW THE PURPOSE OF TRAVEL AS "MSO-519 SPECIAL PERFORMANCE TRIALS AT SEA AS SCHEDULED BY TRIAL ENGINEERS * * *. J.O. 03-184-0403.' THE CLAIMANTS CONTEND THAT THEY WERE IN A STANDBY SERVICE STATUS AND, HENCE, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THEY WERE ABOARD THE VESSEL UNDER THE "TWO- THIRDS RULE" OF THE REGULATIONS NCPI 85. PARAGRAPH NCPI 85.4-3F (1) PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES ON TRIAL TRIPS (SHAKEDOWN OR OTHER SEA TRIALS) OF VESSELS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PERFORMING TRAVEL; THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN A STANDBY STATUS FROM TIME OF EMBARKATION TO TIME OF DISEMBARKATION. HOWEVER, THE SHIPYARD REPORTS THESE CLAIMANTS WERE PAID FOR THE ACTUAL HOURS WORKED, APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF NCPI 85.4-3F (2) WHICH CONCERN "TRIPS ON VESSELS TO CONDUCT STUDIES" OF METHODS, STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR GENERAL APPLICATION. THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE TRAVEL ORDERS ERRONEOUSLY WERE ISSUED, OR WHETHER THE PURPOSE THEREOF SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED AS ,PERFORMANCE TRIALS.'
THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE VESSEL'S OPERATIONS PRIMARILY IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER. HOWEVER, A TRAVEL STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE APPARENTLY WOULD BE IMPROPER AS PROVIDED IN NCPI 85.4-3F (1) IF THE VESSEL WAS, IN FACT, ON A SHAKEDOWN OR OTHER SEA TRIAL TRIP. THEREFORE, WE SHOULD APPRECIATE THE RECEIPT OF ADVICE FROM YOUR OFFICE CONCERNING THE ABOVE QUESTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF TRAVEL ORDERS, AND WHETHER THE CLAIMED "STANDBY" TIME MERELY INVOLVED A SITUATION OF AN ISOLATED LOCATION OF ACTUAL WORK AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE MERELY IN AN ON-CALL STATUS OR SUBJECT TO CALL FOR WORK AS AND WHEN NEEDED DURING NONWORK HOURS.