B-155014, OCT. 30, 1964
Highlights
NEW YORK POST OFFICE WHO WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANTED SUCH LEAVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING A BIDDING SESSION FOR VACANT POSITIONS AT THAT OFFICE HELD IN THE MAIN BUILDING ON JANUARY 20. ACTUALLY WERE ON DUTY AND THAT ALL EMPLOYEES DID NOT HAVE THE SAME PRIVILEGES. NO PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE NOTICE OR THE POSTAL MANUAL FOR THE GRANTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE TO ATTEND THE BIDDING SESSION. THIS WAS THE PRACTICE IN FORCE AND EFFECT AT THE TIME CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS. NOTHING IN THE NOTICE OR THE POSTAL MANUAL INDICATES THAT ATTENDANCE THEREAT BY BIDDING EMPLOYEES WAS CONSIDERED DUTY. THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED WERE IN A LEAVE-WITH-PAY STATUS FOR THE FOUR HOURS THEY ATTENDED THE BIDDING SESSION.
B-155014, OCT. 30, 1964
TO MR. DAVID S. KAPLAN:
YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 14, 1964, MAKING CLAIM FOR FOUR HOURS COMPENSATION ACTUALLY REPRESENTS A CLAIM FOR RESTORATION OF FOUR HOURS ANNUAL LEAVE FOR SIX EMPLOYEES OF THE IDLEWILD AIR MAIL FACILITY OF THE JAMAICA, NEW YORK POST OFFICE WHO WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANTED SUCH LEAVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING A BIDDING SESSION FOR VACANT POSITIONS AT THAT OFFICE HELD IN THE MAIN BUILDING ON JANUARY 20, 1963, A SUNDAY, ON WHICH THEY PERFORMED FOUR HOURS DUTY OF THEIR SCHEDULED EIGHT-HOUR TOUR. WE ADVISED YOU ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1964, THAT WE FOUND IT NECESSARY TO SECURE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE MATTER. THE REQUESTED INFORMATION HAS NOW BEEN RECEIVED.
YOU CONTEND THAT THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, WHILE PERSONALLY ATTENDING THE BIDDING SESSION, ACTUALLY WERE ON DUTY AND THAT ALL EMPLOYEES DID NOT HAVE THE SAME PRIVILEGES. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE POSTMASTER NOTIFIED ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE VACANCIES FOR WHICH BIDS COULD BE SUBMITTED. SUCH NOTICE PROVIDED FOR PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AND A SUBMISSION OF ORAL BIDS AND ALSO FOR WRITTEN BIDS. IN ADDITION SECTION 748.212I OF THE POSTAL MANUAL PERMITTED THE SUBMISSION OF A WRITTEN BID. NO PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE NOTICE OR THE POSTAL MANUAL FOR THE GRANTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE TO ATTEND THE BIDDING SESSION. THIS WAS THE PRACTICE IN FORCE AND EFFECT AT THE TIME CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS. NOTHING IN THE NOTICE OR THE POSTAL MANUAL INDICATES THAT ATTENDANCE THEREAT BY BIDDING EMPLOYEES WAS CONSIDERED DUTY.
THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED WERE IN A LEAVE-WITH-PAY STATUS FOR THE FOUR HOURS THEY ATTENDED THE BIDDING SESSION, I.E., ANNUAL LEAVE HAVING BEEN GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY. SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE FOUR HOURS INVOLVED NO BASIS EXISTS FOR AGAIN COMPENSATING THEM. THEY APPARENTLY CHOSE TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT, WERE REFUSED ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE BUT WERE GRANTED ANNUAL LEAVE.
CONCERNING THE INDICATION IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WAS BASED ON AN AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY AUTHORITY WHEREBY ,OFFICIAL DUTY" MAY BE DETERMINED BY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN POSTAL EMPLOYEES AND THE DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER THE FACT THAT THE REORGANIZATION WHICH RESULTED IN THE BIDDING FOR POSITIONS WAS OFFICIALLY ORDERED WOULD NOT BE CONTROLLING.
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ACTION OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN DETERMINING THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT THE BIDDING SESSION WAS NOT OFFICIAL DUTY. SECTION 721.9, ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS RELIEVING EMPLOYEES FROM DUTY, POSTAL MANUAL, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND UPON THE PRESENT RECORD, WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING COMPENSATION FOR THE FOUR HOURS INVOLVED OR FOR AUTHORIZING RESTORATION OF ANNUAL LEAVE TO THAT EXTENT.