B-151230, FEB. 2, 1965
Highlights
THAT YOUR CLAIM IS NOT . IN THAT YOUR CLAIM IS FOR STANDBY TIME WHILE THE DREDGE WAS AT THE DOCK. WHEREAS HIS CLAIM IS FOR STANDBY TIME AT SEA. WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS. CONCERNING OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF CREWS OF VESSELS WHOSE COMPENSATION IS FIXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATES AND "PRACTICES" OF THE MARITIME INDUSTRY.
B-151230, FEB. 2, 1965
TO MR. ROBERT E. LAWRENCE, JR.: WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 19, 1964, REQUESTING THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE ADJUDICATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE ON THE DREDGE GERIG, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE OF ALBERT B. WINGATE V. UNITED STATES IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ABOUT WHICH WE INFORMED YOU IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 7, 1964.
YOU SAY THAT, CONTRARY TO WHAT WE SAID IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 7, 1964, THAT YOUR CLAIM IS NOT ,SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL" WITH MR. WINGATE S, IN THAT YOUR CLAIM IS FOR STANDBY TIME WHILE THE DREDGE WAS AT THE DOCK, WHEREAS HIS CLAIM IS FOR STANDBY TIME AT SEA. HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS, IN THAT BOTH INVOLVE STANDBY PRACTICES LONG FOLLOWED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND, IN ALL PROBABILITY, THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 202 (8) OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 955, 5 U.S.C. 1082 (8), CONCERNING OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF CREWS OF VESSELS WHOSE COMPENSATION IS FIXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATES AND "PRACTICES" OF THE MARITIME INDUSTRY. ALSO, BOTH CLAIMS INVOLVE THE SAME DREDGE. THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE POLICY EXPLAINED IN OUR LETTER, WE ADHERE TO OUR DETERMINATION TO WITHHOLD ACTION ON YOUR CLAIM PENDING THE OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE WINGATE CASE.