B-181634, JAN 24, 1975

B-181634: Jan 24, 1975

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHERE SECURITY GUARDS ARE GIVEN OPTION OF CHANGING INTO UNIFORMS AT PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF DUTY. UNITED STATES IS NOT FOR APPLICATION AND DENIAL FOR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME PAY FOR TIME SPENT CHANGING INTO AND OUT OF UNIFORM WAS PROPER. THE EMPLOYEE'S APPEAL IS BASED ON THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN BAYLOR V. WHICH ALLOWED OVERTIME PAY WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT EARLY TO CHANGE INTO UNIFORMS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THEIR OFFICIALLY SCHEDULED SHIFTS AND TO REMOVE THEIR UNIFORMS AT THE END OF EACH SHIFT BEFORE LEAVING THE DUTY AREA. IT WAS STATED THAT IT APPEARED FROM THE RECORD THAT MR. GOODIN HAD BEEN PAID THE OVERTIME TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED INCLUDING THE TIME REQUIRED TO CHANGE INTO UNIFORM.

B-181634, JAN 24, 1975

WHERE SECURITY GUARDS ARE GIVEN OPTION OF CHANGING INTO UNIFORMS AT PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF DUTY, BAYLOR V. UNITED STATES IS NOT FOR APPLICATION AND DENIAL FOR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME PAY FOR TIME SPENT CHANGING INTO AND OUT OF UNIFORM WAS PROPER.

DONALD V. GOODIN - OVERTIME CLAIM OF GUARD FOR CHANGING INTO AND OUT OF UNIFORM:

DONALD V. GOODIN, EMPLOYED AS A MEMBER OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SECURITY PATROL FORCE IN OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE, HAS APPEALED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION OF HIS CLAIM FOR OVERTIME PAY ALLEGED TO BE DUE HIM FOR TIME SPENT CHANGING INTO AND OUT OF HIS UNIFORM, DRAWING AND RETURNING WEAPONS AND STANDING FORMATION.

THE EMPLOYEE'S APPEAL IS BASED ON THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN BAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 198 CT. CL. 331 (1972), WHICH ALLOWED OVERTIME PAY WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT EARLY TO CHANGE INTO UNIFORMS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THEIR OFFICIALLY SCHEDULED SHIFTS AND TO REMOVE THEIR UNIFORMS AT THE END OF EACH SHIFT BEFORE LEAVING THE DUTY AREA.

IN THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE (Z-2480669) DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1973, WHICH DENIED THE CLAIM, IT WAS STATED THAT IT APPEARED FROM THE RECORD THAT MR. GOODIN HAD BEEN PAID THE OVERTIME TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED INCLUDING THE TIME REQUIRED TO CHANGE INTO UNIFORM, DRAWING AND RETURNING WEAPONS, AND STANDING ROLL CALL FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 14, 1962.

THE INFORMATION OF RECORD SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 24, 1964, THE GUARDS, INCLUDING MR. GOODIN, WERE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE PREPARATORY AND CONCLUDING FUNCTIONS WHICH INCLUDED AMONG OTHER THINGS CHANGING INTO AND OUT OF UNIFORM FOR WHICH THEY WERE UNIFORMLY PAID 30 MINUTES OF OVERTIME TO COMPENSATE FOR THE TIME REQUIRED TO PERFORM THESE SERVICES. NOVEMBER 24, 1964, SEVERAL CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE PREPARATORY AND CONCLUDING FUNCTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN OVERTIME PAYMENTS BEING REVISED DOWNWARD. THIS REVISION WAS REQUIRED IN PART BY A POLICY REVISION WHEREBY AFTER NOVEMBER 24, 1964, THE GUARDS WERE PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED TO WEAR THEIR UNIFORMS, WITHOUT THE WEAPON, TO AND FROM WORK.

MR. GOODIN, IN HIS APPEAL, HAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE COPIES OF ANNOUNCEMENTS NOS. 96 AND 134 DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1964, AND APRIL 1, 1971, RESPECTIVELY, ISSUED BY THE PHYSICAL SECURITY BRANCH AT OAK RIDGE. ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 96 STATES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

"1. UNIFORMS (LESS WEAPONS) MAY BE WORN DIRECTLY BETWEEN PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF DUTY. PATROL MEMBERS MAY CHANGE TO CIVILIAN CLOTHES OR TO UNIFORM AT HEADQUARTERS IF THEY SO DESIRE BUT NO TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPENSATION PURPOSES."

SIMILAR PROVISIONS ARE CONTAINED IN ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 134.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING, MR. GOODIN STATES THAT UNDER THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS, HE RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION FOR UNIFORM CHANGES, TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER THE BAYLOR CASE.

THE BAYLOR CASE HOLDS THAT SECURITY GUARDS ARE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME PAY FOR THE TIME REQUIRED TO CHANGE INTO UNIFORM, IF REQUIRED TO CHANGE AT THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO NOVEMBER 24, 1964, GUARDS WERE GIVEN THE OPTION OF CHANGING AT THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF DUTY AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO CHANGE AT THE DUTY STATION; THEREFORE, THE BAYLOR CASE IS INAPPLICABLE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION IS AFFIRMED.