B-94467, JUN. 21, 1956
Highlights
OF CERTAIN POSTAL REGULATIONS WHICH WE UNDERSTAND MAY HAVE AFFECTED YOUR SENIORITY AND WHICH YOU STATE WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN OUR SETTLEMENT. WE WISH TO ASSURE YOU THAT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE MATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM WHILE PERMANENTLY STATIONED AT THE NEW HAVEN TERMINAL. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO NEW HAVEN. YOUR DUTIES SINCE THAT TIME HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITHIN NEW HAVEN AND NO FURTHER ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL TERMINATING SUCH PERMANENT REASSIGNMENT. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT NO PER DIEM IS AUTHORIZED OR PAYABLE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY AN EMPLOYEE AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION.
B-94467, JUN. 21, 1956
TO MR. THOMAS H. O-BRIEN:
YOUR RECENT LETTERS REQUEST REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 9, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WHILE ON DUTY AT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, FROM JULY 1, 1954, TO THE PRESENT TIME, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE POSTAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.
IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU REFER TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1925, 43 STAT. 1053, 1062, AND OF CERTAIN POSTAL REGULATIONS WHICH WE UNDERSTAND MAY HAVE AFFECTED YOUR SENIORITY AND WHICH YOU STATE WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN OUR SETTLEMENT. WE WISH TO ASSURE YOU THAT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE MATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM WHILE PERMANENTLY STATIONED AT THE NEW HAVEN TERMINAL.
IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD BEFORE US THAT IN FEBRUARY 1954 YOU MADE FORMAL APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT TO A REGULAR POSITION AT THE NEW HAVEN TERMINAL, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. SINCE YOU HAD NOT WITHDRAWN YOUR APPLICATION ON JUNE 16, 1954, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO NEW HAVEN, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1954. STANDARD FORM 50, ENTITLED NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION, ISSUED BY THE POSTAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO EFFECT YOUR TRANSFER DESIGNATED YOUR CHANGE OF DUTY STATION AS A PERMANENT "REASSIGNMENT.' SO FAR AS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, YOUR DUTIES SINCE THAT TIME HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITHIN NEW HAVEN AND NO FURTHER ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL TERMINATING SUCH PERMANENT REASSIGNMENT.
IT IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT NO PER DIEM IS AUTHORIZED OR PAYABLE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY AN EMPLOYEE AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF, AND NEITHER HAS THERE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION ANY STATUTORY OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN YOUR SITUATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE ESTABLISHED RULE.
IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE APPARENTLY UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS RELATING TO YOUR SENIORITY WERE FOR TIMELY CONSIDERATION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVELY ESTABLISHED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF YOUR PERMANENT REASSIGNMENT TO NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. IN NO EVENT, HOWEVER, DOES IT APPEAR THAT SUCH MATTERS COULD OPERATE TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF YOUR REASSIGNMENT TO NEW HAVEN FROM A PERMANENT REASSIGNMENT TO A REASSIGNMENT ON DETAIL AND WE WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SERVING IN NEW HAVEN ON A TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OUT OF NEW YORK SINCE JULY 1, 1954.
ACCORDINGLY, UPON REVIEW OUR SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 9, 1956, MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.
IN REGARD TO YOUR QUERY RELATIVE TO FURTHER APPEAL IN THIS MATTER, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO SECTION 1491, TITLE 28, OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.