B-159163, JUL. 26, 1966
Highlights
NELSON: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 29. WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER OF DECISION OF JUNE 20. YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CLAIM OF APRIL 26. WITH RESPECT TO LIMITATIONS UPON GRANTING COMPENSATORY TIME YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO SECTION 755.14 OF THE POSTAL MANUAL. THIS WAS UNDOUBTEDLY THE REASON THAT REGIONAL POSTAL AUTHORITIES DESIRED YOU TO LIMIT YOUR CLAIM TO THAT PERIOD. SINCE YOU CHOSE TO COVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM FROM JULY 1961 TO OCTOBER 1965 THE MATTER WAS FORWARDED TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR DETERMINATION AS BEING OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. OUR OFFICE WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYING OVERTIME COMPENSATION OR NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL TO AN EMPLOYEE WHERE SUCH WORK HAD NOT BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED.
B-159163, JUL. 26, 1966
TO MR. EDWARD N. NELSON:
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 29, 1966, ASKING OUR ADVISE CONCERNING THE STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED IN PURSUING YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM FOR NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY AND CREDIT FOR COMPENSATORY TIME DATED APRIL 26, 1966, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER OF DECISION OF JUNE 20, 1966.
YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CLAIM OF APRIL 26, 1966. WITH RESPECT TO LIMITATIONS UPON GRANTING COMPENSATORY TIME YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO SECTION 755.14 OF THE POSTAL MANUAL, 1954 EDITION, WHICH REQUIRES COMPENSATORY TIME TO BE GRANTED WITHIN 13 PAY PERIODS. THIS WAS UNDOUBTEDLY THE REASON THAT REGIONAL POSTAL AUTHORITIES DESIRED YOU TO LIMIT YOUR CLAIM TO THAT PERIOD. SINCE YOU CHOSE TO COVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM FROM JULY 1961 TO OCTOBER 1965 THE MATTER WAS FORWARDED TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR DETERMINATION AS BEING OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
OUR OFFICE WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYING OVERTIME COMPENSATION OR NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL TO AN EMPLOYEE WHERE SUCH WORK HAD NOT BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED. IN THAT REGARD, IT WAS STATED IN B-150338, MAY 23, 1966, CITING BILELLO ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 198-63,"* * * WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THE PRACTICE IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED DIRECTION BY AN OFFICER TO WORK OVERTIME.'
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF JANUARY 17, 1966, IN YOUR CASE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU WERE NOT ORDERED OR REQUESTED TO PERFORM SERVICE IN EXCESS OF YOUR REGULAR HOURS. THE APPROVAL OF THE OVERTIME AND NIGHT WORK HERE INVOLVED ARE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS FOR RESOLUTION BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. UNLESS AND UNTIL THE REQUIRED APPROVAL IS OBTAINED BY YOU, AND SUBMITTED TO US THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THAT DEPARTMENT, OUR OFFICE MUST DENY YOUR REQUEST FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM.