B-162210, AUG. 29, 1967

B-162210: Aug 29, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CIVILIAN SECURITY POLICE GUARDS WHO CLAIM THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT 30 MINUTES EARLY EACH DAY ALTHOUGH ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DOES NOT INDICATE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR EARLY REPORTING MUST HAVE CLAIM FOR OVERTIME DISALLOWED. THE CLAIMANTS ALLEGED THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT 30 MINUTES EARLY EACH DAY AS CIVILIAN SECURITY POLICE GUARDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL. THE CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENTS OF APRIL 14. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR REPORTING A FULL ONE-HALF HOUR EARLY AS ALLEGED. IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN OUR SETTLEMENTS THAT PRIOR TO APRIL 14. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE THREE CLAIMANTS HERE INVOLVED WERE HIRED AFTER SUCH PRACTICE WAS DISCONTINUED.

B-162210, AUG. 29, 1967

COMPENSATION - OVERTIME DECISION RE CLAIMS OF THREE CIVILIAN SECURITY GUARDS AT ARMY ELECTRONIC COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH FOR OVERTIME FOR PERIOD APRIL 14, 1960, TO AUG. 1, 1965. CIVILIAN SECURITY POLICE GUARDS WHO CLAIM THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT 30 MINUTES EARLY EACH DAY ALTHOUGH ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DOES NOT INDICATE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR EARLY REPORTING MUST HAVE CLAIM FOR OVERTIME DISALLOWED.

TO SIEGFRIED W. STEELE, ESQUIRE:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTERS OF MAY 1 AND JULY 28, 1967, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMS OF RICHARD S. ROOY, ROBERT L. TIEDEMANN AND FRANK A. DANGLER FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS PER WEEK BETWEEN APRIL 14, 1960, AND AUGUST 1, 1965.

THE CLAIMANTS ALLEGED THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT 30 MINUTES EARLY EACH DAY AS CIVILIAN SECURITY POLICE GUARDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL, UNITED STATES ARMY ELECTRONIC COMMAND, HEADQUARTERS, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY. HOWEVER, THE CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENTS OF APRIL 14, 1967, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR REPORTING A FULL ONE-HALF HOUR EARLY AS ALLEGED. IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN OUR SETTLEMENTS THAT PRIOR TO APRIL 14, 1960, A PRACTICE DID EXIST OF REQUIRING EARLY REPORTING TO THE EXTENT OF 10 MINUTES EACH DAY FOR GUARDS IN CERTAIN AREAS, BUT IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE THREE CLAIMANTS HERE INVOLVED WERE HIRED AFTER SUCH PRACTICE WAS DISCONTINUED.

IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS YOU SUBMITTED A COPY OF A MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1954, ISSUED BY THE OPERATIONS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL, HEADQUARTERS, SIGNAL CORPS CENTER AND FORT MONMOUTH, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY. THAT MEMORANDUM (A COPY OF WHICH WAS IN OUR FILES AT THE TIME THE CLAIMS WERE DENIED) SHOWS THAT CIVILIAN GUARDS WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT AT EIGHT-HOUR INTERVALS, THAT IS, AT 0630 HOURS, 1430 HOURS AND 2230 HOURS, RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE GUARDS WERE TO REPORT PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THEIR EIGHT-HOUR SHIFTS OR REMAIN ON DUTY FOR ANY TIME AFTER THE END OF THE SHIFTS. NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT A FORTY-TWO AND ONE-HALF (42-1/2) HOUR WORKWEEK HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR SUCH GUARDS. OTHER EVIDENCE OF RECORD WHICH INCLUDES STATEMENTS FROM SIX GUARDS AS WELL AS THE CHIEF, DOD SECURITY POLICE, IS TO THE EFFECT THAT FROM APRIL 14, 1960, TO AUGUST 1, 1965, NO EARLY REPORTING WHATSOEVER WAS REQUIRED OF THE SECURITY POLICE FORCE GUARDS.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE PRIOR ACTION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIMS OF MESSRS ROOY, TIEDEMANN AND DANGLER MUST BE SUSTAINED.