B-157748, OCT. 15, 1965

B-157748: Oct 15, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DAILEY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12. APPARENTLY YOU ARE OF THE IMPRESSION THAT YOUR ENTIRE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE OF NOT BEING FILED WITHIN TEN YEARS SPECIFIED BY LAWAND YOU SEEK INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THAT LAW HAS BEEN CHANGED IN ANY WAY. OUR ORIGINAL REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM WAS BASED ON TWO SEPARATE GROUNDS. THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS THE RUNNING OF THE TEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO FILING CLAIMS IN OUR OFFICE. THAT IS. WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE YOU DID NOT QUALIFY FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER THE LAWS AUTHORIZING SUCH COMPENSATION DURING THAT PERIOD. IS THE LAW TODAY. SO THE EARLIER PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM IS BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION BY THIS OFFICE.

B-157748, OCT. 15, 1965

TO MR. JOSEPH P. DAILEY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF MAY 13, 1953, WHICH DENIED YOUR CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR EIGHT EXTRA HOURS PER WEEK AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 7, 1942, THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 1942.

APPARENTLY YOU ARE OF THE IMPRESSION THAT YOUR ENTIRE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE OF NOT BEING FILED WITHIN TEN YEARS SPECIFIED BY LAWAND YOU SEEK INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THAT LAW HAS BEEN CHANGED IN ANY WAY.

OUR ORIGINAL REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM WAS BASED ON TWO SEPARATE GROUNDS, THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS THE RUNNING OF THE TEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO FILING CLAIMS IN OUR OFFICE, 31 U.S.C. 71A, 54 STAT. 1061, COVERING THAT PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1942. THE BALANCE OF THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM, THAT IS, FROM SEPTEMBER 23, 1942, TO NOVEMBER 28, 1942, WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE YOU DID NOT QUALIFY FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER THE LAWS AUTHORIZING SUCH COMPENSATION DURING THAT PERIOD. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS BEEN THE LAW SINCE OCTOBER 9, 1940, AND IS THE LAW TODAY, SO THE EARLIER PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM IS BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION BY THIS OFFICE. BUT WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLICABLE OR NOT YOUR ENTIRE CLAIM IS UNSUPPORTABLE IN VIEW OF THE LIMITATIONS ON OVERTIME COMPENSATION DURING THAT ERA.

AS EXPLAINED IN OUR CLAIMS DIVISION LETTER TO YOU OF MAY 13, 1953, NEITHER OF THE TWO ACTS THEN AFFECTING OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR WAR DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICE EMPLOYEES APPLIED TO YOU AS A PATROLMAN. THE EARLIER LAW, AN ACT OF OCTOBER 21, 1940, 54 STAT. 1025, AUTHORIZED OVERTIME PAY FOR MORE THAN FORTY HOURS WORKED IN ONE WEEK FOR CERTAIN WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES AND SPECIFIED SKILLED EMPLOYEES OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICE, BUT DID NOT INCLUDE ALL WAR DEPARTMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. YOUR POSITION AS A PATROLMAN WAS AMONG THOSE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ACT.

THE LATER ACT OF JUNE 3, 1941, 55 STAT. 241, AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS PER WEEK FOR CERTAIN FIELD SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT WHOSE OVERTIME SERVICES WERE DETERMINED AS ESSENTIAL TO AND DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE EXPEDITIOUS PROSECUTION OF THE OVERTIME WORK OF THOSE EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE EARLIER ACT.

PURSUANT TO THIS LATER ACT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF HOLABIRD QUARTERMASTER MOTOR BASE, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, ISSUED A MEMORANDUM DIRECTING OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE DATE OF ISSUE MARCH 29, 1942. THIS MEMORANDUM EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED "WATCHMEN, PATROLMEN, TELEPHONE OPERATORS, AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN WORK OF A DEPARTMENTAL NATURE * * *" AMONG OTHERS. THEREFORE, YOU AS A PATROLMAN, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR THOSE HOURS WORKED OVER FORTY A WEEK.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, OVERTIME COMPENSATION WAS EXTENDED TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT GENERALLY BY A JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF DECEMBER 22, 1942, CH. 798, 56 STAT. 1068. FROM ITS EFFECTIVE DATE, DECEMBER 1, 1942, ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME PAY FOR WORKING MORE THAN FORTY HOURS IN ONE WEEK, BUT THIS DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 7 THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 1942, THE SPAN OF TIME FOR WHICH YOU SEEK RECOVERY.

ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE LAWS WE MUST ONCE MORE DENY YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 7, 1942, THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 1942.

WE FURTHER ADVISE YOU THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAW BEING ENACTED WHICH WOULD RETROACTIVELY CREATE A LEGAL LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE OVERTIME HOURS YOU WORKED IN 1942 IS RATHER REMOTE CONSIDERING THE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS THAT HAVE PASSED.