B-119689, OCT. 4, 1961
Highlights
REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED AND THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS UPON WHICH SUCH ACTION WAS BASED. MCLAUGHLIN IS A TRANSFER CLERK IN THE PHILADELPHIA POST OFFICE. TRANSFER OFFICES WERE AUTHORIZED A WORKWEEK CONSISTING OF DAYS OTHER THAN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY WHENEVER SUCH A WORK ARRANGEMENT WAS NECESSARY. INASMUCH AS ALL POSTAL EMPLOYEES ARE NOW ON A MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY SCHEDULE. HIS SATURDAYS ARE CONSIDERED EXCESS DAYS FOR WHICH HE IS GRANTED COMPENSATORY TIME F.'. HE WAS CHARGED 1 HOUR COMPENSATORY TIME AND 7 HOURS LEAVE WITHOUT PAY. ALTHOUGH LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH PAY IS NOT PROPER FOR GRANTING TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR DAYS OUTSIDE HIS REGULAR WORKWEEK ON WHICH HE MAY BE SCHEDULED TO PERFORM SERVICES.
B-119689, OCT. 4, 1961
TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL:
ON JUNE 1, 1961, CONGRESSMAN JAMES A. BYRNE, REFERRED TO US THE LETTER OF MAY 30, 1961, FROM MR. NEAL J. MCLAUGHLIN, A TRANSFER CLERK IN THE POST OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, CONCERNING THE FAILURE OF THAT POST OFFICE TO GRANT HIM SICK LEAVE ON SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1961. ON SEPTEMBER 22, THE ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF PERSONNEL, SUBMITTED THE REPORT WE REQUESTED ON JUNE 7, 1961, REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED AND THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS UPON WHICH SUCH ACTION WAS BASED.
THE ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL SAYS:
"MR. MCLAUGHLIN IS A TRANSFER CLERK IN THE PHILADELPHIA POST OFFICE. PRIOR TO THE MERGER ON JULY 23, 1960, OF POSTAL TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES INTO POST OFFICES, TRANSFER OFFICES WERE AUTHORIZED A WORKWEEK CONSISTING OF DAYS OTHER THAN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY WHENEVER SUCH A WORK ARRANGEMENT WAS NECESSARY. BEFORE THE MERGER, MR. MCLAUGHLIN WORKED A SCHEDULED WORKWEEK CONSISTING OF FIVE DAYS, TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. SINCE THE MERGER, HE HAS CONTINUED TO WORK THE SAME SCHEDULE, HOWEVER, INASMUCH AS ALL POSTAL EMPLOYEES ARE NOW ON A MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY SCHEDULE, HIS SATURDAYS ARE CONSIDERED EXCESS DAYS FOR WHICH HE IS GRANTED COMPENSATORY TIME F.'
MR. MCLAUGHLIN LEFT WORK AFTER WORKING JUST OVER ONE HOUR ON SATURDAY, MAY 6, BECAUSE HE BECAME ILL. THE POST OFFICE DID NOT ALLOW SICK LEAVE FOR THAT DAY BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED WORKWEEK, I.E., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. ON MONDAY, MAY 8, MR. MCLAUGHLIN'S REGULAR DAY OFF, HE WAS CHARGED 1 HOUR COMPENSATORY TIME AND 7 HOURS LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
ALTHOUGH LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH PAY IS NOT PROPER FOR GRANTING TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR DAYS OUTSIDE HIS REGULAR WORKWEEK ON WHICH HE MAY BE SCHEDULED TO PERFORM SERVICES, IT IS OUR VIEW IN THIS CASE THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S WORKWEEK IN FACT WAS TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY HIS ABSENCE ON SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1961, WAS AN ABSENCE ON ONE OF THE DAYS WITHIN HIS REGULAR WORKWEEK. WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THE AUTHORITY OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO ESTABLISH WORKWEEKS FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE POSTAL SERVICE CONSISTING OF MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY OR SUCH OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK AS MAY BE NECESSARY. B-126979, MARCH 21, 1956. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE A REGULATION ESTABLISHING A WORKWEEK OF MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FOR ALL POSTAL EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE REGARDED AS CONTROLLING WHERE THE FACTS, SUCH AS HERE, SHOW THAT AN EMPLOYEE ACTUALLY IS AND HAS BEEN SCHEDULED TO WORK A DIFFERENT WORKWEEK.
IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF HIS LETTER, THE ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL SAYS THAT MR. MCLAUGHLIN'S APPLICATION FOR SICK LEAVE FOR JUNE 7 (MAY 6, APPARENTLY INTENDED) WILL BE APPROVED IF WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY DO SO ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GRANTING OF SICK LEAVE FOR MAY 6, 1961, AND THE CANCELLATION OF THE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FOR MONDAY MAY 8, 1961, BY YOUR DEPARTMENT IS DEEMED PROPER.