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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadiii0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
FILE: . B-197660
MATTER
DIGEST:
DATE: June 6, 1980
OF: William D. Fish and Harold C. Guy
Backpay for Failure to Assign Overtime Duty]
Collective bargaining agreement provides
that overtime work will normally be performed
by employees who regularly perform those duties.
Agency official issued a grievance decision finding
that, although the task in dispute was a rush job,
the work should have been assigned to the two
grievants and, therefore, the failure to do so
violated the agreement. Since the deciding
official's interpretation of the agreement is a
reasonable one, we find the grievants are entitled
to overtime pay under Back Pay Act.
. I May backpay for overtime work be paid to two Air Force
employees who did not actually perform the work, but would
have peritrmed it had it not been for a violation of the nego-
tiated a.greement between the agency and the union?
Under the circumstances presented when the failure to
properly assign overtime amounted to a breach of a nondis-
cretionary provision, we hold that the grievants may be paid
under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596.
The Accounting and Finance Officer, Mather Air Force
Base, California, has requested an advance decision con-
cerning the propriety of -settling a grievance for overtime
compensation filed under the 1976 negotiated agreement
between the 323d Flying Training Wing (ATC) and Local 1692,
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
Copies of the request and supporting documents were served
on AFGE Local 1692 in accordance with 4 C. F. R. Part 21.
On March 4 and 5, 1979, two carpenters installed ceramic
mosaic tile at the Officers Club. Two masons, William D.
Fish and Harold C. Guy, filed a grievance alleging that under
the terms of the contract, the work should have been assigned
to them and they are therefore entitled to overtime compensa-
tion. They relied on Article 13, Section 3 of the negotiated
agreement which provides, in pertinent part, that:
Overtime work will normally be performed by employees
who perform these duties as a part of their regular j-. .
o THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION OF THE UNITEO STATES
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20548
44. 1-E1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadiii0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)