Skip to Highlights
Highlights

COMPENSATION - INTERNATIONAL DATELINE CROSSINGS AN EMPLOYEE WHO "LOST" A WORKDAY INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF STATION TRANSFER FROM HONOLULU TO TOKYO DUE TO CROSSING THE INTERATIONAL DATELINE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DAY UNDER THE RULE THAT IN ESTABLISHING ENTITLEMENT TO PAY. THE TIME OF THE PLACE AT WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS LOCATED IS CONTROLLING UNDER 15 U.S.C. 262. THE PARTICULARS CONCERNING THE TRANSFER ARE AS FOLLOWS: MR. PRICE WHOSE WORKWEEK IS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. PRICE WAS PAID FOR 8 HOURS ON THURSDAY. WAS NOT PAID FOR FRIDAY. WHICH WAS THE DAY "LOST" DURING TRAVEL. WHO WAS KILLED IN AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY IN JAPAN WAS THE CALENDAR DATE AT THE PLACE WHERE DEATH OCCURRED RATHER THAN THE DATE AT THE LOCATION OF HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION.

View Decision

B-165110, OCTOBER 24, 1968, 48 COMP. GEN. 233

COMPENSATION - INTERNATIONAL DATELINE CROSSINGS AN EMPLOYEE WHO "LOST" A WORKDAY INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF STATION TRANSFER FROM HONOLULU TO TOKYO DUE TO CROSSING THE INTERATIONAL DATELINE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DAY UNDER THE RULE THAT IN ESTABLISHING ENTITLEMENT TO PAY, THE TIME OF THE PLACE AT WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS LOCATED IS CONTROLLING UNDER 15 U.S.C. 262. IN ACCORDANCE WITH LONGSTANDING ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THE PAY OF AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA TIME GAINED WHEN TRAVELING ACROSS THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE IN AN EASTWARD DIRECTION--- THE CROSSINGS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS CANCELING EACH OTHER OUT. HOWEVER, ANY SPECIFIC FACTUAL SITUATIONS MAY BE PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION.

TO R. J. SCHULLERY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OCTOBER 24, 1968:

WE MAKE REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 1968, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO THE COMPENSATION DUE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER (PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION) FROM HONOLULU, HAWAII, TO TOKYO, JAPAN, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE "LOST" A WORKDAY BECAUSE THE TRAVEL INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER INVOLVED CROSSING THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE.

THE PARTICULARS CONCERNING THE TRANSFER ARE AS FOLLOWS: MR. JOSEPH R. PRICE WHOSE WORKWEEK IS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 8 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M., DEPARTED HONOLULU AT NOON ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1964, AND AFTER APPROXIMATELY 8 HOURS ELAPSED TIME HE ARRIVED IN TOKYO AT 3:25 P.M. ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 1964 (7:55 P.M., AUGUST 27, HONOLULU TIME). YOU INDICATE THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MR. PRICE WAS PAID FOR 8 HOURS ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 27 (INCLUDING TRAVEL TIME), BUT WAS NOT PAID FOR FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, WHICH WAS THE DAY "LOST" DURING TRAVEL. HE HAS NOW MADE A CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR THAT DAY.

YOU REFER TO THE CASE 33 COMP. GEN. 51 (1953) IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPARATION OF AN EMPLOYEE PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED TO WASHINGTON, D.C., WHO WAS KILLED IN AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY IN JAPAN WAS THE CALENDAR DATE AT THE PLACE WHERE DEATH OCCURRED RATHER THAN THE DATE AT THE LOCATION OF HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE EMPLOYEE IN THAT CASE WAS CREDITED WITH COMPENSATION FOR THE DAY LOST CROSSING THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE EN ROUTE TO JAPAN. IN VIEW OF THAT DECISION YOU QUESTION WHETHER YOUR AGENCY MAY PROPERLY DENY EMPLOYEES PAY FOR DAYS LOST CROSSING THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE.

THE FACTS PRESENTED SHOW THAT MR. PRICE WAS IN A WORK STATUS FOR TRAVEL ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 27 IN HONOLULU AND THAT HE WAS IN A WORK STATUS FOR COMPLETION OF HIS TRAVEL ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 28 IN TOKYO. THE LENGTHENING OR SHORTENING OF WORKDAYS DUE TO TRAVEL BETWEEN PLACES LOCATED IN DIFFERENT TIME ZONES IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING AN EMPLOYEE'S ENTITLEMENT TO THE BASIC PAY. FURTHER, IN ESTABLISHING AN EMPLOYEE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PAY THE TIME OF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE IS LOCATED IS CONTROLLING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 19, 1918, CH. 24, 40 STAT. 451, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. 262. ALTHOUGH THAT SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES A SIMILAR RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES IN THE CITED CASE 33 COMP. GEN. 51. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE BELIEVE THAT EMPLOYEES CROSSING THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE IN A WESTWARD DIRECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR PAY REDUCED BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE DATE OR TIME. THEREFORE, MR. PRICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE DAY'S PAY WHICH WAS WITHHELD INCIDENT TO HIS TRAVEL FROM HONOLULU TO TOKYO.

REGARDING THE MATTER OF EASTWARD TRAVEL ACROSS THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE AT THIS TIME THE AMOUNT OF PAY WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL CASES INVOLVING SUCH TRAVEL. HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE A LONG STANDING PRACTICE IN MANY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, THE PAY OF AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMING SUCH TRAVEL SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED MERELY BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA DAY OR PART OF A DAY WHICH RESULTS FROM TRAVEL ACROSS THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE IN AN EASTWARD DIRECTION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CROSSING IN ONE DIRECTION IS USUALLY CANCELED OUT BY THE CROSSING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. ANY SPECIFIC FACTUAL SITUATIONS WHICH MAY BE INVOLVED IN A VOUCHER BEFORE YOU MAY BE PRESENTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.

GAO Contacts