B-147985, MAY 31, 1962
Highlights
WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR A PERIOD DURING WHICH YOU ASSERT THAT YOU WERE ASSIGNED WORK OF A GRADE HIGHER THAN THAT TO WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED. THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT HAS INFORMED US THAT YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THEIR CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE IN THE PAYROLL UNIT OF THE SETTLEMENTS SECTION AND THAT YOU WORKED ON RETIREMENT RECORDS WHILE IN THAT POSITION PRIOR TO JULY 2. IN A RECENT REPORT TO US CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT SAID: "WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE IS NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMED "DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER THAN THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN HIS POSITION DESCRIPTION" AS STATED IN SECTION 204 (B).
B-147985, MAY 31, 1962
TO MRS. IMA C. WELLS:
ON JANUARY 4, 1962, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 29, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR A PERIOD DURING WHICH YOU ASSERT THAT YOU WERE ASSIGNED WORK OF A GRADE HIGHER THAN THAT TO WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED. AS PROOF OF SUCH ASSIGNMENT YOU FORWARDED A COPY OF A MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 27, 1956, FROM MR. W. A. STEVENS TO ,ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE RETIREMENT UNIT" WHICH DESIGNATED YOU AS "ACTING SUPERVISOR OF THE RETIREMENT UNIT.'
THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT HAS INFORMED US THAT YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THEIR CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE IN THE PAYROLL UNIT OF THE SETTLEMENTS SECTION AND THAT YOU WORKED ON RETIREMENT RECORDS WHILE IN THAT POSITION PRIOR TO JULY 2, 1956, THE DATE THE REGIONAL OFFICE ASSUMED COMPLETE CONTROL OF RETIREMENT RECORDS. THAT DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO INFORMED US THAT ON APRIL 6, 1956, YOU REQUESTED REEVALUATION OF YOUR SALARY LEVEL, THEN PFS-4 TO PFS-9 AND THAT ON JUNE 28, 1956, YOU REQUESTED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 204 (B) OF THE POSTAL FIELD SERVICE COMPENSATION ACT OF 1955 (PUBLIC LAW 68, 84TH CONGRESS), 69 STAT. 117.
IN A RECENT REPORT TO US CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT SAID:
"WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE IS NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMED "DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER THAN THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN HIS POSITION DESCRIPTION" AS STATED IN SECTION 204 (B). INSTEAD, MRS. WELLS PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF HER OWN POSITION, THOUGH IT IS AGREED THAT THE RANKING ASSIGNED ON DECEMBER 3, 1955 WAS WRONG. OUR INFORMATION FROM THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR AT CHICAGO IS THAT IF HER POSITION HAD BEEN PROPERLY RANKED ON DECEMBER 3, 1955, SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RANKED AS GROUP LEADER, ACCOUNTING CLERK, PFS-6. THIS WAS HER ASSIGNMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON APRIL 27, 1956, SHE WAS GIVEN ADDITIONAL DUTIES WHICH WERE NOT OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED AND RANKED UNTIL JULY 24, 1956 --- AND THEN IN PFS-7. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT SHE NEVER PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF THE PFS-9 POSITION.
"WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS CASES WHERE AN EMPLOYEE'S POSITION WAS NOT PROPERLY RANKED ON THE CONVERSION DATE OF DECEMBER 3, 1955. WHERE THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1956, AS INDICATED IN OUR POSTAL BULLETIN OF DECEMBER 6, 1955 (SEE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, B-126780 OF MARCH 12, 1956), THE CORRECTION ACTION WAS TAKEN PROSPECTIVELY. IN NO INSTANCE WAS 204 (B) HIGHER PAY GRANTED ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE WAS DOING WORK OF A LEVEL HIGHER THAN HIS OWN ON DECEMBER 3, 1955. FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN EMPLOYEE HAD HIS POSITION RANKED AS GENERAL MECHANIC, PFS-4 ALTHOUGH HE REALLY WAS A BLACKSMITH, PFS-5, HE RECEIVED A CORRECTED ACTION, NOT THAT PLUS A 204 (B) HIGHER LEVEL PAY ACTION. IF, BEFORE THE CORRECTION ACTION HE HAD BEEN MADE A FOREMAN MECHANIC, PFS-7, THEN TWO ACTIONS WOULD BE TAKEN, THE FIRST TO CORRECT THE CONVERSION, THE SECOND TO PROMOTE HIM--- PROSPECTIVELY--- TO HIS NEW POSITION.'
BASED UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED FACTS IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BY REASON OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT IN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
OUR SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 29, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.