B-160411, MAR. 13, 1967
Highlights
WHICH WAS DISALLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 16. IT IS POINTED OUT IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF OUR DECISION B-160411. SHANK CONCEIVABLY COULD HAVE SECURED AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED EITHER IN AN ORDER FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION OR DIRECTIONS TO TAKE AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF TIME OFF ON THE DAYS THE EARLY REPORTING OCCURRED. WAS NOT MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING MR. RATHER IT WAS MADE TO POINT OUT THE SITUATION IN THE BILELLO CASE CITED IN OUR DECISION WHICH SITUATION IS CONSIDERED COMPARABLE TO MR. THIS MATTER WAS FULLY DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE- REFERRED TO DECISION. SHANK'S NOTARIZED STATEMENT IS THE SAME INFORMATION ALREADY OF RECORD. ALL OF WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 11.
B-160411, MAR. 13, 1967
TO MR. J. F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT:
YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1967, REFERENCE 4C/L-1938, WRITTEN IN BEHALF OF MR. LLOYD C. SHANK, SUBMITS A NOTARIZED STATEMENT DATED JANUARY 30, 1967, MADE BY MR. SHANK TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DID ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS HIS WORK SITUATION WITH HIS SUPERVISOR WITHOUT SUCCESS. YOU ASK THAT IN VIEW OF THAT STATEMENT HIS CLAIM, Z-2310812, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1966, NOW BE PAID.
IT IS POINTED OUT IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF OUR DECISION B-160411, JANUARY 11, 1967, CONCERNING MR. SHANK'S CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 5, 1956, THROUGH NOVEMBER 3, 1965, STATES THAT MR. SHANK CONCEIVABLY COULD HAVE SECURED AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED EITHER IN AN ORDER FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION OR DIRECTIONS TO TAKE AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF TIME OFF ON THE DAYS THE EARLY REPORTING OCCURRED. YOU SAY THE NOTARIZED STATEMENT SHOWS WHY MR. SHANK COULD NOT SECURE SUCH A RULING. OUR COMMENT IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 11, 1967, WAS NOT MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING MR. SHANK MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT. RATHER IT WAS MADE TO POINT OUT THE SITUATION IN THE BILELLO CASE CITED IN OUR DECISION WHICH SITUATION IS CONSIDERED COMPARABLE TO MR. SHANK-S. THIS MATTER WAS FULLY DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE- REFERRED TO DECISION. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN MR. SHANK'S NOTARIZED STATEMENT IS THE SAME INFORMATION ALREADY OF RECORD, ALL OF WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 11, 1967.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1966, AND DECISION B 160411, JANUARY 11, 1967, ARE ..END :