B-172722 October 12, 1971

B-172722: Oct 12, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

Your claim can be summerized as involving voluntary overtime for which you were not paid. The record shows that any overtime you may have performed was neither authorized nor approved as required by 5 U.S.C. 5542 and the implementing that the overtime in question was ordered or actively induced or encouraged by an offical to whom authority had been delegated to authorize or approve overtime work. Which was submitted with your letter received here on August 25. Corroborates that your apparent overtime work was unofficial and on your own initiative. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for the payment of overtime compensation. You state that you were approximately 2 weeks away from a periodic step-increase in your former grade of GS-12.

B-172722 October 12, 1971

Mr. Joseph G. Raucci 104 Sadler Avenue Colonial Heights, Virginia 23834

Dear Mr. Raucci:

We refer to your two letters--one dated April 14, 1971, and forwarded here by Congressman Abbitt and one received in our Office on August 25, 1971, with enclosures--which appeal the denial of your claim by our Claims Division and offer further information for consideration by this Office. Your claim can be summerized as involving voluntary overtime for which you were not paid, back pay for an administrative failure to delay your grade promotion until a periodic stop-increase became effective, back pay for performing duties of a position one grade higher that your classification, and compensation for an alleged work-related injury where responsible personnel failed to inform you of your rights under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8101).

The record shows that any overtime you may have performed was neither authorized nor approved as required by 5 U.S.C. 5542 and the implementing that the overtime in question was ordered or actively induced or encouraged by an offical to whom authority had been delegated to authorize or approve overtime work. See Bilello v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 1253 (1966). The supporting statement of Lieutenant Colonel D. J. Corea, your former supervisor, which was submitted with your letter received here on August 25, 1971, corroborates that your apparent overtime work was unofficial and on your own initiative. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for the payment of overtime compensation.

At the time of your promotion to grade GS-13, step 2, affective August 2, 1970, you state that you were approximately 2 weeks away from a periodic step-increase in your former grade of GS-12, step 5. If your promotion had been delayed until your entitlement to grade GS-12, step 6, had vested, your promotion to grade GS-13 would have been to step 3 of that grade instead of step 2. The decision to promote, however, is in the discretion of the agency concerned, and we are not aware of any Army regulation or policy to defer an otherwise proper promotion so that a periodic step-increase can precede such promotion, thereby entitling the employee to a higher stop within the grade to which promoted. Accordingly, your promotion constituted an "equivalent increase" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 5355, and you would not then entitled to the next higher step.

You state in one of your letters that a reevaluation of your job by civilian personnel in late 1969 indicated that it was evaluated as a GS-13 slot and that you were later detailed to the job on April 1, 1970. There is nothing contained in the record before us to establish that your particular job was ever officially reclassified from grade GS-12 to grade GS-13. We assume that either a grade GS-13 position already existed, which included the extra duties you were performing, or else a new grade GS-13 was established to include the duties of the GS-12 position held by you plus the extra duties of research and preparation of manuals. If this be so, then the fact that you performed the duties of the grade GS-13 position would not be a proper basis for entitlement to the compensation of such position prior to your actual promotion thereto on August 2, 1970.

Your letters have dwelt at some length on the matter of a work-related injury which could conceivably constitute the basis of a claim under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8101-8150). Section 8145 of title 5, United States Code, gives the Secretary of Labor exclusive authority to administer that act and to decide all questions of interpretation and application. We note that implementing regulations can be found in title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations and call your attention to the provisions on waiver of time requirements for the filing of claims in 5 U.S.C. 8122(c). Under the present circumstances there is no action that our Office is authorized to consider on this issue.

Your grievances concerning working conditions and relationships with certain supervisory personnel are beyond the jurisdiction of our Office, and there is no action we may properly take in such matters.

In view of the foregoing we conclude that there is no basis for the allowance of your claim, and the denial of our Claims Division is hereby sustained.

Very truly yours,

R. F. Keller Deputy Comptroller General of the United States