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

B-182231 1 (1976-02-09)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaddqr0001 and id is 1 raw text is: THE COMPTRLL..LER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 .t DECISICN FILE: B-1822 DATE: FEB 9 1976 MATTER OF: Shirley N. Bingham--Overtime Compensation-- Reconsideration DIGEST: 139 /3T 3 Employee who allegedly worked overtime and whose claim for overtime compensa- tion was disallowed on the ground that such overtime was not authorized or approved requests reconsideration of that decision. Upon reconsideration previous disallowance is affirmed where record neither shows that such overtime was officially authorized or approved as reouired by 5 U. S. C. 5 5542(a) nor affirmatively induced. This action is in response to a recluest for reconsideration of our decision of July 10, 1975, B-182231, which sustained the dis- allowance by our Transportation and Claims Division (now Claims Division) of the claim of Shirley N. Eingharn, an employee of the National L bor ielations Board (NLED), for overtime compensation for the period beginningr July 1, 1970. The facts in this case were fully stated in our decision of July 10, 1975, and need not be repeated except as pertinent to the present discussion of the case. In asking for a reconsideration of our July 10, 1975 decision, Ms. Bingham states alleged misconceptions by our Cffice upon which the disallowance of her claim rested. Ms. Bingham claims that the Regional Director (of NLRB) is not the only official vested with authority to approve overtime and indicates that the Regional Attorney, Assistant Director, and others who directed her work and activities, also had authcrity to authorize or approve overtime. While Ms. Eingham has not presented any regulation or other written authority to support this statement the memorandum of December 20, 1974, from the Director of Rkegion 20, Mr. Hoffman to Ms. Eingham, indicates otherwise. Mr. Hoffman stated therein that even before he could authorize such extended overtime asMs. Bingham claimed to have worked he must first obtain the approval of the Central Office. Mr. H-offman stated further that if Ms: Bingham had raised the overtime compensation problem prior to the performance of the alleged work in auestion he would have found a method of solving the problem without resorting to overtime*. Ms. Bingham contends further that the second misconception by our Cffice is in the statement on page 4 of the decision of July 10, 1975, B-182231, which provides as follows: 31 I

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