B-167587, SEP 8, 1969

B-167587: Sep 8, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT INDICATING THAT EMPLOYEE WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING DUTY THAT NO OVERTIME WAS AUTHORIZED PRECLUDES PAYMENT OF OVERTIME TO EMPLOYEE ON BASIS OF APPROVAL BY TELEPHONE. PAPPAS: THIS WILL REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14. AS WAS STATED IN THE LETTER TO YOU FROM THE CLAIMS DIVISION. THAT HOURS OF WORK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE WORK-WEEK ARE OVERTIME WHEN SUCH HOURS ARE OFFICIALLY ORDERED AND APPROVED. EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME THE WORK IN QUESTION WAS PERFORMED. ARE AUTHORIZED TO ORDER OR APPROVE OVERTIME. ***" ALTHOUGH YOU STATE IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT THAT YOU RECEIVED APPROVAL OF OVERTIME WORK BY TELEPHONE FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR (PRESUMABLY IN ADVANCE OF WORKING SUCH OVERTIME) NEVERTHELESS THE FILE CONTAINS NO STATEMENT FROM SUCH SUPERVISOR TO THAT EFFECT.

B-167587, SEP 8, 1969

CIVIL PAY - OVERTIME COMPENSATION DECISION TO NAVY EMPLOYEE SUSTAINING SETTLEMENT DENYING CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION PERFORMED BETWEEN JUNE 21, 1966 THROUGH JULY 2, 1966. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT INDICATING THAT EMPLOYEE WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING DUTY THAT NO OVERTIME WAS AUTHORIZED PRECLUDES PAYMENT OF OVERTIME TO EMPLOYEE ON BASIS OF APPROVAL BY TELEPHONE.

TO MR. THOMAS E. PAPPAS:

THIS WILL REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1969, REQUESTING A REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 16, 1967, OF THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE WHICH DENIED YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR 27 1/2 HOURS OF WORK PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD JUNE 21, 1966, THROUGH JULY 2, 1966.

AS WAS STATED IN THE LETTER TO YOU FROM THE CLAIMS DIVISION, SECTION 201 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 5542 (FORMERLY 5 U.S.C. 911, 1964 ED.) PROVIDES, AS RELEVANT TO YOUR CASE, THAT HOURS OF WORK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE WORK-WEEK ARE OVERTIME WHEN SUCH HOURS ARE OFFICIALLY ORDERED AND APPROVED. REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING THIS LAW, 5 CFR 550.111(C), REVISED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1964, APPLICABLE AT THE TIME IN QUESTION, PROVIDE THAT:

"(C) OVERTIME WORK IN EXCESS OF ANY INCLUDED IN A REGULARLY SCHEDULED ADMINISTRATIVE WORKWEEK MAY BE ORDERED OR APPROVED ONLY IN WRITING BY AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO WHOM THIS AUTHORITY HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED."

NAVY CIVILIAN PERSONNEL INSTRUCTIONS 610-3-2B, EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME THE WORK IN QUESTION WAS PERFORMED, PROVIDE THAT:

"(1) OVERTIME MUST BE ORDERED IN ADVANCE OR APPROVED AFTER IT HAS BEEN PERFORMED, IN WRITING, BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY, IN ORDER TO BE COMPENSABLE

"(2) CHIEFS OF BUREAUS AND OFFICES, ACTIVITY COMMANDING OFFICERS AND MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL DESIGNATED BY THEM, ARE AUTHORIZED TO ORDER OR APPROVE OVERTIME. ***"

ALTHOUGH YOU STATE IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT THAT YOU RECEIVED APPROVAL OF OVERTIME WORK BY TELEPHONE FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR (PRESUMABLY IN ADVANCE OF WORKING SUCH OVERTIME) NEVERTHELESS THE FILE CONTAINS NO STATEMENT FROM SUCH SUPERVISOR TO THAT EFFECT. FURTHER, YOUR REFERENCE TO YOUR "SUPERVISOR," WITHOUT FURTHER IDENTIFICATION DOES NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER OR APPROVE OVERTIME AS SPECIFIED IN NCPI 610-3-2B(2).

THIS OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL, AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATIONS, CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED, B-159256, JULY 29, 1966; B- 162483, JANUARY 9, 1968; B-163866, MAY 7, 1968; AND B-166565, APRIL 29, 1969 (COPIES ENCLOSED).

WE POINT OUT THAT YOUR STATEMENT AS TO TELEPHONE APPROVAL OF THE OVERTIME IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT OF THE NAVAL SHORE ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING ACTIVITY, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY INFORMED, PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING THE DUTY AT THE NAVAL RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY AT DOUGLAS, ARIZONA, THAT NO OVERTIME WAS AUTHORIZED. APPARENTLY, THIS WAS THE REASON FOR FAILING TO SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVE THE OVERTIME.

ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATEMENT FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR THAT HE HAD AUTHORITY TO ORDER OR APPROVE THE 27 1/2 HOURS OF OVERTIME AND DID SO ORDER OR APPROVE THE SAME WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUSTAIN THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 16, 1967, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM.