B-163952, MAY 7, 1968

B-163952: May 7, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE CLAIM IS ONE OF 23 CLAIMS FILED ON OCTOBER 26. THE CLAIMANT WAS ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE OF LLOYD ANDERS ET AL. THE CASES WERE SETTLED ON THE BASIS OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 11 ADDITIONAL MINUTES PER WORKDAY BY STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE PLAINTIFFS AND CERTAIN NONPLAINTIFF CLAIMANTS ALSO AGREED THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TO ACCEPT PAYMENT ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR 11 MINUTES ADDITIONAL OVERTIME FOR THE PERIOD 1954-1958 (PRIOR TO PERIOD COVERED BY COURT ACTION) AND PAYMENT WAS EFFECTED ON THAT BASIS. THE LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FAILS TO MENTION THESE PRIOR PAYMENTS AND OF THE 45 MINUTES OVERTIME PER DAY REFERRED TO IN SUCH LETTER WE ASSUME THAT CLAIM ACTUALLY IS NOW BEING MADE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 45 MINUTES PER DAY AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 26 MINUTES PER DAY WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY PAID.

B-163952, MAY 7, 1968

TO DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE CENTER:

WE REFER TO AFAFC FORM 610-13, DATED JANUARY 11, 1968, FORWARDING FOR CONSIDERATION THE CLAIM OF RALPH P. COOK, GUARD SUPERVISOR, AT KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, FOR $1,715.97, ADDITIONAL OVERTIME FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 14, 1957 THROUGH JUNE 9, 1963. THE CLAIM IS ONE OF 23 CLAIMS FILED ON OCTOBER 26, 1966, BY THE NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

THE CLAIMANT WAS ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE OF LLOYD ANDERS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, CT. CL. NO. 211-64, DECIDED MAY 17, 1965, WHO SOUGHT 30 MINUTES OVERTIME COMPENSATION PER DAY DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 6, 1958 TO JULY 6, 1964. AFTER THE PLAINTIFFS CONCEDED THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED PAYMENT FOR 15 MINUTES OF THE 30 MINUTES CLAIMED IN THE PETITION, THE CASES WERE SETTLED ON THE BASIS OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 11 ADDITIONAL MINUTES PER WORKDAY BY STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PLAINTIFFS AND CERTAIN NONPLAINTIFF CLAIMANTS ALSO AGREED THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TO ACCEPT PAYMENT ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR 11 MINUTES ADDITIONAL OVERTIME FOR THE PERIOD 1954-1958 (PRIOR TO PERIOD COVERED BY COURT ACTION) AND PAYMENT WAS EFFECTED ON THAT BASIS.

THE LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FAILS TO MENTION THESE PRIOR PAYMENTS AND OF THE 45 MINUTES OVERTIME PER DAY REFERRED TO IN SUCH LETTER WE ASSUME THAT CLAIM ACTUALLY IS NOW BEING MADE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 45 MINUTES PER DAY AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 26 MINUTES PER DAY WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY PAID.

YOU FORWARDED WITH THE CLAIM JOB DESCRIPTIONS INDICATING GUARD SUPERVISORS WERE TO REPORT ONE HOUR PRIOR TO SHIFT CHANGES AND TIME RECORDS FROM 1961 TO 1964 INDICATING THE CLAIMANT REPORTED AT LEAST ONE HOUR PRIOR TO THE SHIFT CHANGES. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ANDERS CASE WE DISALLOWED A CLAIM FROM A GUARD SUPERVISOR AT KELLY AIR FORCE BASE ON THE BASIS OF THE COURT CASE AND INFORMATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE EFFECT THAT, WHILE THERE WERE SEVERAL OBSOLETE JOB DESCRIPTIONS INDICATING AN EARLIER REPORTING TIME FOR GUARD SUPERVISORS, NO WRITTEN DIRECTIVES OR ORDERS REQUIRING THEM TO REPORT AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME IN ADVANCE OF THE BEGINNING OF THEIR SHIFTS WERE LOCATED FOR THE PERIOD OF 1954 TO 1964, AND THE TIME CARDS DID NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE DUTY HOURS. MOREOVER, SINCE THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE CLAIMED THE ADDITIONAL OVERTIME AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF ACTIONS INCIDENT TO THE ANDERS CASE, HIS CLAIM IS BARRED FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY THAT CASE BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD BY THE AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM, WHICH IS RETURNED SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AND SIMILAR ACTION TAKEN IN THE OTHER CLAIMS RETAINED BY YOU. WE NOTE THAT THE RECORDS OF OUR OFFICE FAIL TO SHOW RECEIPT OF ANY PRIOR CLAIM FROM MR. WARREN; NOR DOES HIS NAME APPEAR AMONG THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE ANDERS CASE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR FURNISHING A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME THE CLAIMS ARE DENIED.