About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-163654 1 (1974-01-21)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadcbu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DECISION FILE: B-163654 MATTER DIGEST: OLER *~ 7 THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL . OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 2054B CNtrd3 S ' DATE: January 21, 1974 OF: Request for reconsideration of decision of July 26, 1973, B-163654, denying overtime compensation for time spent in a travel status Where event necessitating INS inspector's travel was controllable or where inspector's travel could have been scheduled within his regular workweek there is no authority for payment of overtime compensation under 5 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2)(B)(iv) even though employees were administratively required to perform travel on own time. Policy expressed in 5 U.S.C. 6101(b)(2) that to maximum extent practicable travel should be scheduled within employee's regularly scheduled workweek is not itself authority for payment of overtime compensation and leaves to agency discretion when it is impracticable to so schedule travel. This action is a reconsideration of decision B-163654 dated July 26, 1973, disallowiag the claims of Messrs. Louis J. Audet, Linwood C. Bailey, Michael E. Casey, John A. Gibson, William S. Hilyard, Louis J, Pettit, J. Wesley Pyle, Harold J. Scribner, Joseph Tokarz, and Roy M. Tudor, all employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), for overtime compensation for time spent traveling between Calais and Lubec or Vanceboro, Maine, for the purpose of providing relief of officers on annual or sick leave. The claims of the above-named individuals were held not to be covered by 5 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2)(B)(iv) which authorizes overtime compensation for travel resulting from an event which cannot be scheduled or controlled administratively. That disallowance was predicated on the fact that leave taken by other employees which precipitated the temporary assignments and related travel of the claimants as substitutes for the absent employees was, in most instances, within administrative control and where it was not there was such notice of the substitution requirement as would have permitted scheduling of the travel within regular duty hours. It was explained in the prior decision that no authority exists for payment of overtime compensation for travel time when the work is subject to administrative control but the agency fails to schedule related travel within the employee's administrative workweek.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most