B-132295, JUL. 30, 1957
Highlights
THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM WAS THAT YOUR SALARY WAS WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER. YOUR CLAIM WAS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES V. THAT AS A PIPEFITTER HELPER YOUR SALARY WAS SET AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WAGE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE PUBLIC PRINTER AND A COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTING JOURNEYMEN PRINTERS. IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER. THE REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ON YOUR CLAIM SHOWS THAT YOUR EMPLOYMENT WAS NOT UNDER A NEGOTIATED WAGE AGREEMENT SUCH AS THE ONE WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION IN THE KELLY CASE. MAY HAVE FIXED YOUR RATE OF COMPENSATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE NEGOTIATED RATE FOR JOURNEYMEN DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CREATING A FORMAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING PREMIUM PAY FOR HOLIDAY WORK SUCH AS THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE KELLY CASE.
B-132295, JUL. 30, 1957
TO MR. WALTER A. JONES:
YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 11, 1957, REQUESTS US TO RECONSIDER OUR DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORK PERFORMED ON LEGAL HOLIDAYS AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FROM JANUARY 1, 1942, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 3, 1945. OUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1957, ADVISED YOU THAT RECENT COURT ACTIONS SUPPORTED THE DISALLOWANCE.
AS STATED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 3, 1953, THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM WAS THAT YOUR SALARY WAS WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER, AND, THEREFORE, YOUR CLAIM WAS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES V. KELLY, 342 U.S. 193, WHICH APPLIED ONLY TO EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED UNDER A WAGE AGREEMENT WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 658, HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED BY THE PUBLIC PRINTER AND A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR OCCUPATION, AND WHICH AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF PREMIUM AND GRATUITY PAY FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ON HOLIDAYS.
YOU SAY IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER THAT YOU HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1924 STATUTE CITED ABOVE; AND THAT AS A PIPEFITTER HELPER YOUR SALARY WAS SET AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WAGE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE PUBLIC PRINTER AND A COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTING JOURNEYMEN PRINTERS, AND IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER.
THE REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ON YOUR CLAIM SHOWS THAT YOUR EMPLOYMENT WAS NOT UNDER A NEGOTIATED WAGE AGREEMENT SUCH AS THE ONE WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION IN THE KELLY CASE. THE WAGE AGREEMENT FOR PIPEFITTERS COVERED ONLY JOURNEYMEN AND DID NOT COVER EMPLOYEES IN THE HELPER CLASS. THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC PRINTER, IN EXERCISING HIS WAGE-FIXING AUTHORITY UNDER THE 1924 STATUTE, MAY HAVE FIXED YOUR RATE OF COMPENSATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE NEGOTIATED RATE FOR JOURNEYMEN DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CREATING A FORMAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING PREMIUM PAY FOR HOLIDAY WORK SUCH AS THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE KELLY CASE. THE MATTER OF PREMIUM PAY FOR HOLIDAY WORK OF EMPLOYEES IN YOUR CATEGORY REMAINED WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER. THE PRACTICE OF PAYING HOLIDAY PREMIUM PAY WHICH HAD BEEN IN EFFECT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS PRIOR TO 1938 WAS ABROGATED, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, BY A NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER DATED AUGUST 26, 1938, TO EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
UPON RECONSIDERATION, WE HOLD THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 3, 1953, PROPERLY DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM, AND THAT OUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1957,CORRECTLY ADVISED YOU CONCERNING THE PRESENT STATUS OF YOUR CLAIM.