B-161022, APR. 19, 1967

B-161022: Apr 19, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WAS DIRECTED TO TRAVEL TO BUFFALO. SHE CLAIMED ( 18 3/4 ( HOURS OF OVERTIME SERVICE DURING THE TIME SHE WAS IN A TRAVEL STATUS. SHE WAS ONLY ALLOWED OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ( 5 3/4 ( HOURS OF SUCH TRAVEL BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME SHE ACTUALLY HAD CUSTODY OF THE PRISONER. THE FOREGOING DECISION TO WHICH YOU REFER CONCERNS SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT THE TRAVEL IS A PART OF AN EMPLOYEE'S TOUR OF DUTY SUCH AS (1) WHERE THE TRAVEL IS AS INHERENT PART OF AND INSEPARABLE FROM THE WORK ITSELF. OR (2) WHERE THE TRAVEL IS PERFORMED BETWEEN A SECTOR OFFICE AND A WORK SITE AFTER PICKING UP TOOLS. IN THAT CONNECTION SEE 5 U.S.C. 5542 (B) (2) WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: "/2) TIME SPENT IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL-DUTY STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS.

B-161022, APR. 19, 1967

TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 21, 1967, REFERENCE 4G/L12272, WRITTEN IN BEHALF OF MISS ELINOR K. KEHL, FROM WHOM YOU SUBMIT A POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED MAY 19, 1965, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF HER CLAIM Z-2293680 WHICH WE DISALLOWED ON AUGUST 11, 1965, NOT 1966 AS SHOWN BY YOUR LETTER. YOU REFER TO OUR DECISION B-146389 OF FEBRUARY 1, 1966, AS AUTHORITY FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM.

IT APPEARS THAT MISS KEHL IN OCTOBER 1964, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WAS DIRECTED TO TRAVEL TO BUFFALO, NEW YORK, TO PICK UP A PRISONER FOR RETURN TO WASHINGTON, D.C. SHE CLAIMED ( 18 3/4 ( HOURS OF OVERTIME SERVICE DURING THE TIME SHE WAS IN A TRAVEL STATUS, OUTSIDE OF HER REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY. HOWEVER, SHE WAS ONLY ALLOWED OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ( 5 3/4 ( HOURS OF SUCH TRAVEL BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME SHE ACTUALLY HAD CUSTODY OF THE PRISONER.

THE FOREGOING DECISION TO WHICH YOU REFER CONCERNS SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT THE TRAVEL IS A PART OF AN EMPLOYEE'S TOUR OF DUTY SUCH AS (1) WHERE THE TRAVEL IS AS INHERENT PART OF AND INSEPARABLE FROM THE WORK ITSELF, OR (2) WHERE THE TRAVEL IS PERFORMED BETWEEN A SECTOR OFFICE AND A WORK SITE AFTER PICKING UP TOOLS, VEHICLES AND SUPPLIES, AND THE RETURN THEREOF TO SUCH SECTOR OFFICE AT THE END OF THE DAY. IN THAT CONNECTION SEE 5 U.S.C. 5542 (B) (2) WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

"/2) TIME SPENT IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL-DUTY STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS---

"/A) THE TIME SPENT IS WITHIN THE DAYS AND HOURS OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED ADMINISTRATIVE WORKWEEK OF THE EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING REGULARLY SCHEDULED OVERTIME HOURS; OR

"/B) THE TRAVEL INVOLVES THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK WHILE TRAVELING OR IS CARRIED OUT UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS.'

WE DO NOT REGARD MISS KEHL'S TRAVEL--- EXCEPT FOR THE ( 5 3/4 ( HOURS DURING WHICH SHE HAD THE PRISONER IN CUSTODY--- AS BEING SIMILAR TO ANY OF THE SITUATIONS COVERED BY OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 1, 1966, SUPRA, OR AS COMING WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS SET FORTH IN THE ABOVE STATUTE. IN SIMILAR CASES WE HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THAT PORTION OF TRAVEL DURING WHICH A PRISONER IS IN CUSTODY CAN BE CONSIDERED AS PERFORMED UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS AND THUS INSEPARABLE FROM WORK. SEE B-144431, DECEMBER 13, 1960, COPY HEREWITH.

ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DISALLOWING MISS KEHL'S CLAIM MUST BE SUSTAINED.