B-148719, MAY 3, 1962
Highlights
REQUESTS OUR RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ALASKA RAILROAD WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 28. YOUR CLAIM IS PREDICATED UPON THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN SAMPLES. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE APPLIED THAT DECISION TO THE EXTENT THAT WE NOW CONSIDER EMPLOYEES OF THE ALASKA RAILROAD SUBJECT TO SECTION 23 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 28. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION UNDER THAT DECISION ONLY IF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID HIM FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID HAD HIS COMPENSATION BEEN COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL TIME WORKED INCLUDING 1 1/2 TIMES THE NORMAL RATE FOR OVERTIME.
B-148719, MAY 3, 1962
TO MR. VERNON S. SNODGRASS:
YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 26, 1962, IN EFFECT, REQUESTS OUR RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ALASKA RAILROAD WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 28, 1959.
YOUR CLAIM IS PREDICATED UPON THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN SAMPLES, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 135 CT.CL. 548. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE APPLIED THAT DECISION TO THE EXTENT THAT WE NOW CONSIDER EMPLOYEES OF THE ALASKA RAILROAD SUBJECT TO SECTION 23 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 28, 1934, 48 STAT. 522, 5 U.S.C. 673C, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION UNDER THAT DECISION ONLY IF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID HIM FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID HAD HIS COMPENSATION BEEN COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL TIME WORKED INCLUDING 1 1/2 TIMES THE NORMAL RATE FOR OVERTIME. THE SYSTEM USED TO COMPUTE THE COMPENSATION OF ALASKA RAILROAD EMPLOYEES DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS IN ADDITION TO THOSE REQUIRED FOR TIME ACTUALLY WORKED AND WE HAVE FOUND FROM A STUDY OF REPRESENTATIVE CASES THAT THE COMPENSATION ACTUALLY PAID EMPLOYEES UNDER THAT SYSTEM EQUALED OR EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID ON AN ACTUAL TIME BASIS. IN VIEW OF THAT FINDING WE WILL NOT SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT TO THE EXPENSE OF RECONSTRUCTING AN EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION AND WORK RECORD BECAUSE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME INDIVIDUAL, CONTRARY TO THE USUAL CASE, DID NOT RECEIVE AS MUCH ON THE BASIS OF THE PAY SYSTEM USED AS HE WOULD HAVE HAD HE BEEN PAID STRICTLY ON THE BASIS OF HOURS WORKED. THEREFORE, AN ALASKA RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WILL BE PAID ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION UNDER THE SAMPLES CASE, SUPRA, ONLY IF HE SHOWS THAT HE WAS UNDERPAID.
SINCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPENSATION YOU RECEIVED OR OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS YOU ACTUALLY WORKED DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WE ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IN FACT, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. THEREFORE, OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 28, 1959, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM MUST BE SUSTAINED.