Claim for Overtime Compensation

A radiology technician for the Veterans Administration appealed an action by the Claims Division which disallowed his claim for overtime compensation. The claim was incident to the employee's contention that he was required to remain in a standby duty status while at his home in connection with his duties. The record indicated that the agency informed the claimant that he was not restricted to his residence and that he could leave, provided he called in a number where he would be reached in the event he was needed at work. Nothing in the record showed that the agency had designated the claimant's home as his duty station. Legislation provides that an employee may be reimbursed for standby duty when he is regularly required to remain at or within the confines of his duty station during longer than ordinary periods of duty. A regulation defines "at or within the confines of his station" as an employee's regular duty station or his living quarters when they are so designated by the agency. The denial of the claim was based on this regulation. The employee did not dispute that he was informed by the agency that he was not required to stay at home during the time he was on call. GAO did not believe that the restriction placed on the employee while he was on call qualified him for overtime compensation under legislation which provides that work performed by an employee in excess of 8 hours a day constitutes overtime work to be paid for. In order to qualify for overtime compensation under this provision, the claimant must establish that the on call time at home constituted hours of work within the meaning of the law. It did not appear that the on call time at home claimed by the employee would qualify as overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On appeal, the employee claimed entitlement to overtime pay because one of his supervisors promised that he would receive such payment. It is well settled that, in the absence of specific statutory authority, the United States is not responsible for erroneous advice or acts of its officers or employees. Accordingly, the disallowance of the Claims Division was sustained.