B-147084, SEP. 21, 1961

B-147084: Sep 21, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHICH IS IDENTICAL WITH YOURS. IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT SUBMITTED BY YOU EXCEPT THAT HE WAS WRITING ONLY IN HIS OWN BEHALF. PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION TO AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE LUNCH PERIOD IS REDUCED TO 20 MINUTES OR LESS BECAUSE OF WORK PERFORMED DURING THAT PERIOD. "THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS SINCE APRIL 30. THAT NO OVERTIME SERVICE DURING THIS PERIOD WAS AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED. YOU DO NOT SHOW THAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PERFORM ANY DUTIES DURING THE 30-MINUTE PERIOD IN QUESTION. WE NOTE THAT YOU ARE NOT CONFINED TO ANY SPECIFIC AREA OF THE INSTALLATION FOR DUTY DURING THE LUNCH PERIOD. STANDBY TIME UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE COMPENSABLE.'.

B-147084, SEP. 21, 1961

TO MR. WALTER J. SKOWRONSKI:

ON JULY 6, 1961, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 31, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES PERFORMED DURING THE THIRTY MINUTE PERIOD ALLOTTED FOR LUNCH. YOU NOT ONLY WRITE IN YOUR OWN BEHALF BUT ALSO WRITE IN BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE SECURITY POLICE AT FRANKFORD ARSENAL.

IN OUR DECISION DATED AUGUST 28, 1961, B-145842, TO MR. CHARLES DUBIN, WE REVIEWED THE DISALLOWANCE OF HIS CLAIM, WHICH IS IDENTICAL WITH YOURS, AND IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH HE SENT A LETTER DATED JULY 22, 1961, WHICH, ALSO, IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT SUBMITTED BY YOU EXCEPT THAT HE WAS WRITING ONLY IN HIS OWN BEHALF. IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF HIS CLAIM WE SAID THAT:

"DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CIVILIAN PERSONNEL REGULATIONS H2.2, PARAGRAPH 2- 6, PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION TO AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE LUNCH PERIOD IS REDUCED TO 20 MINUTES OR LESS BECAUSE OF WORK PERFORMED DURING THAT PERIOD.

"THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS SINCE APRIL 30, 1948, AND THAT NO OVERTIME SERVICE DURING THIS PERIOD WAS AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED. FURTHERMORE, YOU DO NOT SHOW THAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PERFORM ANY DUTIES DURING THE 30-MINUTE PERIOD IN QUESTION. WE NOTE THAT YOU ARE NOT CONFINED TO ANY SPECIFIC AREA OF THE INSTALLATION FOR DUTY DURING THE LUNCH PERIOD, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT BEING THAT YOU MUST BE AT A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED BY TELEPHONE. STANDBY TIME UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE COMPENSABLE.'

THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS, UPON THE PRESENT RECORD, CORRECT, AND HEREBY IS SUSTAINED UPON THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 28, 1961, B- 145842.