About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-201250,B-201252,B-203524,B-204298 1 (1981-09-22)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadjsy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 
0,9 -%LE C'                           /C?~~      -)
                             THE COlPTROLER GENERAL
    DECISION      *          o OF THE UNITED STATES
                  WAS HINGTON, 0.C. 20548




    FILE: B-201252, B-201250,     DATE: September 22, 1981
          B-203524, and B-204298
    MATTER OF:
                 James Jones, et al. - Overtime pay -
                 Evidence to support claim
    DIGEST:
             In the absence of official records, claims
             of Army employees for overtime pay may be
             paid under best available evidence rule to
             the extent that the work schedules substan-
             tiate the employees' claims.

         The issue presented here is whether the evidence
    submitted by 22 employees of the Food Service Division,
    Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for
    overtime pay, for the years prior to 1975, is suffi-
    cient to support their claims. For the reasons set
    forth below, we hold that the evidence is sufficient
    to support payment of the claims.

         These claims arose out of our decision, Council
    and Washburn, 58 Comp. Gen. 347 (1979), in which we
    held that these same employees who frequently worked
    two 8-hour shifts within a 24-hour period, but not
    within the same calendar day, were entitled to over-
    time compensation for work in excess of 8 hours during
    the day which was defined in the collective-bargain-
    ing agreement. The record showed that since 1968 the
    Food Service Division scheduled its employees on an
    early/late tour of duty involving two overlapping
    shifts, 0500 to 1330 and 1100 to 1930 daily. It was
    determined that approximately four times per pay
    period, employees who worked the 1100 to 1930 shift
    one day would work the 0500 to 1330 shift the fol-
    lowing day. This would result in 6 hours of overtime
    for the employeet on the second day if the definition
    of workday, contained in the collective-bargaining
    aggreement, was applicable. We held that since the
    Army had the discretion to establish work schedules
    and order and approve overtime, the Army had apparent-
    ly exercised that discretion by entering into the
    collective-bargaining agreement which defined a work-
    day as the 24-hour period beginning with the employee's
    shift. In effect, the Army had also authorized
    overtime work where the employee worked more than
    8 hours during a 24-hour period.







                            ~q

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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most