B-145691, MAY 17, 1961
Highlights
REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ALASKA RAILROAD WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED MAY 27. IS BASED UPON YOUR SERVICE AS A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN AND ENGINEER DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 17. YOU NOW SAY YOU ARE ENTITLED TO $2. YOU ALSO SAY YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND YOU ASK WHY YOUR CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT. THE RECORD IN WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE CASE SHOWS THAT UNDER THE DUAL SYSTEM OF PAY THE OPERATING EMPLOYEES WERE PAID SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER THE 40-HOUR RULE OF THE CITED STATUTE. YOU HAVE NOT FURNISHED US EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT AFTER SET-OFF OF THE CREDITS FOR "ARBITRARIES AND CONSTRUCTIVE ALLOWANCES" WHICH YOU RECEIVED THERE WOULD BE ANY BALANCE DUE YOU.
B-145691, MAY 17, 1961
TO MR. WILLIAM J. JURY:
YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 16, 1961, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ALASKA RAILROAD WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED MAY 27, 1959, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.
YOUR CLAIM, DATED FEBRUARY 2, 1957, IS BASED UPON YOUR SERVICE AS A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN AND ENGINEER DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 17, 1947, TO FEBRUARY 2, 1957. YOU NOW SAY YOU ARE ENTITLED TO $2,100 AS OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD 1947 TO 1954. YOU ALSO SAY YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND YOU ASK WHY YOUR CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED.
IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 27, 1959, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT--- CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN 135 CT.CL. 548--- IN THE SETTLEMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED TO US FOR CONSIDERATION, THE "ARBITRARIES OR CONSTRUCTIVE ALLOWANCES" PREVIOUSLY PAID UNDER RAILROAD'S DUAL SYSTEM OF COMPENSATION MUST NECESSARILY BE TAKEN AS A CREDIT IN COMPUTING AN OPERATING (TRAIN AND ENGINE SERVICE) EMPLOYEE'S PAY UNDER THE 40-HOUR WEEK STATUTE, 48 STAT. 522.
THE RECORD IN WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE CASE SHOWS THAT UNDER THE DUAL SYSTEM OF PAY THE OPERATING EMPLOYEES WERE PAID SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER THE 40-HOUR RULE OF THE CITED STATUTE. YOU HAVE NOT FURNISHED US EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT AFTER SET-OFF OF THE CREDITS FOR "ARBITRARIES AND CONSTRUCTIVE ALLOWANCES" WHICH YOU RECEIVED THERE WOULD BE ANY BALANCE DUE YOU.
SINCE YOUR LETTER SHOWS ONLY THE LAST NAMES OF THE EMPLOYEES WHOM YOU SAY ARE BEING PAID THEIR FILES ARE NOT READILY IDENTIFIABLE FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION. IT MAY BE SAID, GENERALLY, HOWEVER, THAT OUR OFFICE HAS DENIED PAYMENT ON CLAIMS SIMILAR TO YOURS.