B-174055, B-174070, B-174071, B-174069, B-174008, B-173999, B-174068, DEC 8, 1971

B-173999,B-174008,B-174068,B-174071,B-174070,B-174069,B-174055: Dec 8, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORIZATION IS A PREREQUISITE TO PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNLESS THE CLAIMANTS FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN BILELLO. THE CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DENIED. GRINER: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14. WHICH WILL BE VIEWED AS A REQUEST FOR THE REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION OF 7 SECURITY GUARDS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AT THE OVERHAUL AND REPAIR DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN VERBALLY ADVISED THAT DUE TO THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTY AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUOUS SECURITY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPORT BEFORE AND LEAVE AFTER THEIR NORMAL SHIFT HOURS.

B-174055, B-174070, B-174071, B-174069, B-174008, B-173999, B-174068, DEC 8, 1971

B-173994, AND B-174068 CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - OVERTIME - REQUIREMENT FOR AUTHORIZATION DECISION SUSTAINING THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIMS OF SEVEN PERSONS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION ARISING OUT OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AS CIVILIAN GUARDS AT THE OVERHAUL AND REPAIR DEPARTMENT, NAS, NORFOLK, VA., DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT MAY 1955 AND TERMINATING ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 1960. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORIZATION IS A PREREQUISITE TO PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNLESS THE CLAIMANTS FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN BILELLO, ET AL V UNITED STATES 174 CT. CL. 1253 (1966). SINCE NEITHER OF THE PRECEDING CONDITIONS HAS BEEN MET IN THIS INSTANCE, THE CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DENIED.

TO MR. J. F. GRINER:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1971, WITH ENCLOSURE, WHICH WILL BE VIEWED AS A REQUEST FOR THE REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION OF 7 SECURITY GUARDS, MESSRS. ERNEST O. PARTRIDGE, RAY DUNAGAN, CHARLES E. BARCO, JR., VIRGIL J. HYNTER, COY L. PICKETT, LEWIS B. BOWDEN, AND JESSE MACK INGRUM, ARISING OUT OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AS CIVILIAN GUARDS AT THE OVERHAUL AND REPAIR DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT MAY 1955 AND TERMINATING ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 1960.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AT THE OVERHAUL AND REPAIR DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN VERBALLY ADVISED THAT DUE TO THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTY AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUOUS SECURITY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPORT BEFORE AND LEAVE AFTER THEIR NORMAL SHIFT HOURS. THE EFFECT OF THIS WAS TO CREATE A SITUATION WHEREBY THE MEN WERE OF NECESSITY AT THEIR DUTY STATION FOR OVER 8 HOURS PER DAY. THE ADDITIONAL TIME WAS UTILIZED FOR PERSONNEL INSPECTION, BRIEFINGS, DRAWING AND RETURNING EQUIPMENT, AND TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THEIR DUTY POSTS.

THERE HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR THE RECORD A STATEMENT OF LCDR CHARLES E. FOLZ WHO, DURING A SEGMENT OF THE TIME PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS SECURITY OFFICER AT THE OVERHAUL AND REPAIR DEPARTMENT, AND, AS SUCH, WAS IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY TO THE CLAIMANTS. MR. FOLZ'S STATEMENT IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MEN DID IN FACT PERFORM THE OVERTIME CLAIMED, AND IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED IF THEIR CLAIMS WERE TO BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE SACRIFICES MADE PURSUANT TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

THE RECORD FURTHER INDICATES THAT NEITHER LCDR FOLZ NOR ANY OF HIS PREDECESSORS OR SUCCESSORS AS SECURITY OFFICER WERE IN A POSITION TO EITHER LEGALLY AUTHORIZE OR APPROVE OVERTIME. IN ADDITION, DURING THE PERIOD COVERING THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION, THERE WERE NO WRITTEN ORDERS OR REGULATIONS BY ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZING OR APPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF OVERTIME OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE.

IN DENYING THE RELIEF SOUGHT, WE INDICATED IN OUR SETTLEMENT LETTERS TO EACH OF THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED THAT UNDER THE GOVERNING LAW (THEN 5 U.S.C. 911) ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL WAS A PREREQUISITE TO THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION. SINCE SUCH AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL WAS ABSENT IN THE CASES, NO LEGAL BASIS EXISTED FOR PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS.

IN BILELLO, ET AL. V UNITED STATES, 174 CT. CL. 1253 (1966), THE COURT STATED AT PAGE 1257 THAT:

" *** A REGULATION REQUIRING APPROVAL OF OVERTIME BY A DESIGNATED OFFICIAL BEFORE IT CAN BE PAID IS BINDING ON CLAIMANTS UNLESS THE REGULATION IS UNREASONABLE OR THE OFFICIAL WHO HAS WITHHELD FORMAL WRITTEN APPROVAL HAS NEVERTHELESS ACTIVELY INDUCED AND ENCOURAGED THE OVERTIME."

SEE ALSO OUR DECISIONS B-164617, AUGUST 12, 1968, AND B-170580, OCTOBER 21, 1970, COPIES HEREWITH. UNDER THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASES, THE PRESENT CLAIMANTS DO NOT FIT INTO EITHER OF THE STATED EXCEPTIONS OF BILELLO. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NO ONE VESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE OR APPROVE OVERTIME EVER ORDERED OR APPROVED THE OVERTIME WORKED BY THE CLAIMANTS IN THESE CASES. THERE IS ALSO ABSENT FROM THE RECORD ANY INDICATION THAT AN OFFICIAL WHO COULD HAVE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED THE OVERTIME EITHER INDUCED OR RATIFIED THE WORK AFTER IT HAD BEEN DONE. THIS OMISSION MAY NOT BE VIEWED AS REMEDIED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE SECURITY OFFICER THEN IN CHARGE OF THE MEN OF THE EXTRA TIME BEING PUT IN BY THEM. HIS KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH OVERTIME COULD HARDLY BE SAID TO TAKE THE PLACE OF AN ORDER FOR THESE MEN TO WORK OVERTIME, OR OF AN APPROVAL OF THEIR CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR HAVING DONE SO. BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE SO CONSTRUED, THE ORDER OR APPROVAL OF THE SECURITY OFFICER OF THE OVERTIME WORKED COULD NOT ENTITLE THE MEN TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR OVERTIME PAY, BECAUSE THE SECURITY OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER OR APPROVE OVERTIME.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, AND UNDER THE CONTROLLING LAW AND REGULATIONS, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO AFFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMS IN WHICH YOU ARE INTERESTED.

Sep 27, 2016

Sep 22, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 20, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here