`11-

.j4JiO

5:m Ile HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR

POSTAL EMPLOYEES

GOVERNMEN

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

-0

-0

a- COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

:139 I JSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 10265

so.TE UN/

JUN 1

19(52

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IN HIS

DISCRETION TO PAY INCREASED BASIC SALARY TO POSTAL

FIELD SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED

BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THEIR

ASSIGNMENTS TO DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF HIGHER

SALARY LEVELS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 11, 1962

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

84214 WASHINGTON: 1962

4

44 itAt.
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

JAMES C. DAVIS, Georgia

KATHRYN E. GRANAHAN, Pennsylvania

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

RICHARD H. ICFIORD, Missouri

CATHERINE D. NORPELL, Arkansas

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizonp

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

WALTER H. MOELLER, Ohio

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York

KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED To CONSIDER H.R. 10265

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

II
UflIV ipç,)..

e!?

JUN 12 19 62

CONTENTS

Statement of—

Block, Herbert, Director, Compensation Division, accompanied by

Adam Wenchel, Acting Deputy General Counsel, Post Office De- Page

partment 4

Dixon, Raymond, attorney-adviser, General Accounting Office,

accompanied by Charles E. Eckert, legislative attorney, and Max

Hirschhorn, Assistant Director of Audits, Post Office Department_. 15

Gibson, Everett, legislative director and secretary, National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees 25

Jaspan, Daniel, legislative representative, National Association of

Postal Supervisors 25

Langan, James K., operations director, Government Employees

Council, AFL—CIO 31

MacKay, John, president, National Postal Union 28

Mc Avoy, Harold, national president, Post Office Mail Handlers,

Watchmen, Messengers, and Group Leaders 32

Messer, Ross A., legislative representative, National Association of

Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees 30

Murphy, Hon. Richard J., Assistant Postmaster General for Personnel_ 5

O'Connor, John F., legislative director, United Federation of Postal

Clerks 23

Rademacher, James H., assistant secretary-treasurer, National Association of Letter Carriers 19

Smith, Ashby, president, National Alliance of Postal Employees 31

Warfel, George, president, National Association of Special Delivery

Messengers 32

HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL

EMPLOYEES

FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE

ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room 215, House Office

Building, Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee)

presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will please come to order.

This subcommittee was appointed to consider H.R. 10265. I

sponsored this bill to correct an inequity imposed on a substantial

number of our postal employees.

This inequity arose by reason of a series of events associated with

the provisions of sestion 204(b) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955, as now contained in 39 U.S.C. 3335(b). This

provision permits the Postmaster General to assign a postal employee

to higher level service and, after an employee has been so assigned for

more than 30 days in a calendar year, the Postmaster General must

pay the employee the pay of the higher level.

The Post Office Department regulations controlling such assignments permits the higher level pay in some cases, even though the

particular employee may not have performed 30 days' higher level

service in the current calendar year. The Comptroller General held

on February 1, 1962, B-138999, that a postal employee must perform

30 days of higher level service in each calendar year before he is

entitled to higher level pay in that particular calendar year for the

days in excess of 30.

As a result of this decision, the Post Office Department has suspended payment of the higher level pay except in those cases where

the employee has performed at least 30 days' higher level service in

the current calendar year. In addition, the Government will require

the employees who have received higher level pay without regard to

the 30-day requirement, to restore or repay to the Government the

amounts received.

The purpose of my bill is to give the Postmaster General authority

to pay the higher level pay for higher level service as he deems advisable, without regard to the 30 days in each calendar year requirement.

Also, section 2 of my proposal will validate past payments, so that

the employees will not be required to refund the amounts which have

been received for higher level service prior to meeting the 30-day in

each calendar year requirement. I ask that there be included in the

record, the following: The bill H.R. 10265; the decision of the Comptroller General of February 1, 1962, B-138999; my letter of February
2 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

19, 1962, to the Comptroller General, advising him of my intention

to sponsor this legislation, and the reply of the Comptroller General

of February 26, 1962, advising that recovery of the overpayments

would be delayed, but that the practice should be discontinued.

(The documents referred to follow:)

[H.R. 10265, 87th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To authorize the Postmaster General in his discretion to pay increased basic salary to postal field service employees for services performed before the expiration of thirty days following their assignments

to duties and responsibilities of higher salary levels, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 3335(b) of title 39, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sentence: "The

Postmaster General may pay, as he deems advisable, in cases of such assignments,

a basic salary computed in accordance with the provisions of such section 3559

without regard to the requirement in this subsection of assignment for more than

thirty days in a calendar year."

SEC. 2. Each payment of an increase in basic salary which was made prior to

the date of enactment of this Act for services performed for periods of thirty

days or less in any calendar year in the course of an assignment referred to in

section 3335(b) of title 39, United States Code, by a postal field service employee

assigned to duties and responsibilities of a higher salary level, and which would

have been authorized by such section 3335(b), if such services had been performed

in the course of such assignment after the completion by such employee of thirty

days of service in any calendar year in such higher salary level, are hereby validated to the same extent as if such services had been performed after the completion of thirty days of service in any calendar year in the course of such assignment.

The Honorable the POSTMASTER GENERAL

DEAR MR. POSTMASTER GENERAL: During the review of your Department's

regional payroll operations by our Civil Accounting and Auditing Division a

question was raised concerning the legality of section 756.542a(4) (b), as amended,

effective October 7, 1960, which reads, as follows:

"An employee who has once established eligibility for higher level compensation

is not required to requalify year after year. So long as he received compensation

in the preceding calendar year for service in a level above the current level of his

position, he shall be paid for all higher level service performed in the then current

calendar year."

Section 204(b), Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955, Public Law 68,

69 Stat. 117, 39 U.S.C. 3335(b), the applicable statutory provision, reads as

follows:

"(b) As the needs of the service require, the Postmaster General may assign

an employee from time to time to perform, without change in compensation,

duties, and responsibilities, other than the duties and responsibilities specifically

set forth in his position description. If an employee is assigned for more than

thirty days in a calendar year to duties and responsibilities of a salary level which

is higher than the salary level to which his position is assigned, except to perform

service in a relief capacity for a supervisor granted compensatory time pursuant

to section 3573 of this title, the Postmaster General shall pay for the period of his

assignment in excess of thirty days, a basic salary computed in accordance with

the provisions of section 3559 of this title."

Our Civil Accounting and Auditing Division on June 30, 1961, requested the

comments of your General Counsel concerning the regulation which says that the

employee "is not required to requalify year after year" to receive the benefits of

the statute just quoted. On July 31, reference 58—F-5, he directed attention to

the fact that nothing in the legislative history "states that the Postmaster General

could not, in his discretion, immediately commence payment for the performance

of higher level service." He says the hearings, House Report No. 728, and the

language of section 204(b) simply impose a ceiling on the amount of higher level

service that can be required without the payment of higher compensation. He

further says that neither the hearings nor House Report No. 728 nor the language

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, February 1, 1962.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 3

of section 204(b) impose a requirement that the employee must perform a minimum of 30 calendar days' service per calendar year before he may be paid higher

compensation. He points out that based upon his expressed views, and in view

of the language of section 807 of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of

1955, 69 Stat. 130, 39 U.S.C. 501, authorizing the Postmaster General to issue

such regulations as may be necessary for the administration of the act, section

756.542a(4) (b), quoted above was issued.

Section 204(b) requires higher level pay for all higher level service performed

in a calendar year in excess of 30 days. The language of the statute is clear and

unambiguous and in our opinion the legislative history seems clearly to support

the proposition that the term "in a calendar year" was intended to provide a

small period in each year during which an employee's services could be used in a

higher grade position without the requirement of adjusting his pay to the higher

rate. Thus, on page 19, House Report No. 728, 84th Congress, accompanying

S. 2061, which bill, upon enactment, became the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955, Public Law 68, concerning section 204(b), it is pointed out

that an employee performing higher level duties for more than 30 days in any

one calendar year will be paid for each day over 30 during the year he works in a

higher level position at the higher level salary. We have not found any other

applicable statutory provision, nor has one been pointed out to us, which authorizes the Postmaster General to commence higher level pay until the employee has

performed 30 days of higher level service in the calendar year. Our opinion is

that section 807, above, may not be used as a basis for authorizing the higher level

pay and, except for the provisions of section 204(b), we are not aware of any

authority for the payment of higher level pay. Without the provisions of section

204(b) postal employees assigned to higher level service would have to be considered as on detail or assignment and under a well established rule would be

entitled only to the compensation of their regular positions, i.e., the lower level

positions to which they were appointed. 33 Comp. Gen. 96, 97 and cases cited;

24 id. 816, 818. Also see Price v. United States (80 F. Supp. 542) ; Coleman v.

United States (100 Ct. Cl. 41); Dvorkin v. United States (101 Ct. Cl. 296); Amundson v. United States (120 F. Supp. 201).

We are of the opinion that the clear language of the statute requires that a

postal employee must perform 30 days of higher level service each calendar yea

before he is entitled to higher level pay for the days in excess thereof. Hence,

since the language of section 756.542a(4) (b), quoted above, does not so provide

the section does not conform with section 204(b) of the cited statute and is,

therefore, invalid. Prompt steps should be taken to revise that section to conform herewith.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL,

Comptroller General of the United States.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., February 19, 1962.

Hon. JOSEPH CAMPBELL,

Comptroller General of the United States,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR GENERAL CAMPBELL: There has come to my attention your decision

to the Postmaster General (B-138999, February 1, 1962) holding to be improper

the Post Office Department regulation which permits a postal employee to be

paid at a higher rate for higher level service before the employee meets the 30-day

in each calendar year requirement at the higher level service provided for by law.

Undoubtedly, you are aware that bills were sponsored in the 86th Congress and

referred to our committee for consideration (for example, H.R. 540 and H.R. 6825)

which would have established a procedure much more liberal than the procedure

adopted by the Post Office Department regulation. It is my understanding that

the sponsors of the bills did not press for committee action on the assumption that

the less liberal procedure established by the regulations was agreed to by the

employees as an acceptable solution to the problem.

I believe it would be an unjustified hardship and a gross inequity to the employees to require the mandatory restoration of the 30-day in each year requirement at this time, without giving Congress an opportunity to consider legislation

on this subject. Accordingly, I am sponsoring legislation immediately which
4 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

will give the Postmaster General authority to pay the higher level salary before

completion of the 30-day requirement in those cases in which he deems such action

to be advisable. This would permit continuation of the existing practice. A

copy of the draft bill is enclosed.

It will be appreciated if you could withhold any action otherwise necessary to

change the existing procedure until such time as Congress has had an opportunity

to act on the matter. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Postmaster

General for his information.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

DAVID N. HENDERSON, M.C.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, February 26, 1962.

B-138999.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. HENDERSON: Your letter of February 19, 1962, concerns our decision to the Postmaster General dated February 1, 1962, B-138999, which held

improper the Post Office Department regulation permitting a postal employee to

be paid at a higher rate for higher level service before the employee meets the

30-day-in-each-calendar-year requirement at the higher level service provided for

by law. You advise that you are sponsoring legislation immediately which will

have the effect of validating the Postmaster General's regulation. You say that

it would be an unjustified hardship and a gross inequity to the employees to make

restoration for amounts heretofore paid under the regulation, and you ask that

we withhold any action otherwise necessary to change the existing procedure

until such time as the Congress has had an opportunity to act on the matter.

We recognize the probable hardship to employees in requiring restoration of

funds and in compliance with your request we will withhold any action seeking

recovery of funds paid under the regulation prior to the date of our decision until

the close of the current session of the Congress. However, since our view is that

the regulation involved does not comply with the existing statute, we do not have

the authority to authorize the continuation thereunder of payments which in our

opinion are in violation of the law. The Postmaster General is being advised

accordingly.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL,

Comptroller General of the United States.

Mr. HENDERSON. Copies of these letters are in the files before each

member of the subcommittee.

I am pleased to see that we have such an impressive group of people

this morning who are interested in my bill. However, several of us

are on rather tight schedules this morning and I urge the witnesses

to be as brief as possible in order that we may conclude the hearings.

We will now hear representatives from the Post Office Department.

I am advised that Mr. Herbert Block, Director of the Compensation

Division, is with us, and Mr. Adam Wenchel, Acting Deputy General

Counsel of the Post Office Department.

Gentlemen, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT BLOCK, DIRECTOR OF COMPENSATION

DIVISION, ACCOMPANIED BY ADAM WENCHEL, ACTING DEPUTY

GENERAL COUNSEL, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. WENCHEL. Mr. Chairman, I am Adam Wenchel, Acting

Deputy General Counsel. Mr. Murphy, who hoped to be with us

this morning, found he could not be here. However, we have sub-
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 5

mitted the statement which he would have presented had he been

here and we would like to have that entered in the record.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL

RICHARD J. MURPHY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the

opportunity to give you the views of the Post Office Department on H.R. 10265.

This bill would validate, retroactively to the effective date, December 3, 1955,

of section 204(b) of Public Law 68, 84th Congress (now codified as 39 U.S.C.,

sec. 3335(b)), the opinion of the Department as to the meaning of this section.

The need for the bill stems from the fact that the opinion of the Department as

to the meaning of this section is contrary to an opinion expressed in Decision

B-138999, February 1, 1962, of the Comptroller General of the United States.

As a result of that decision our regulations were invalidated.

39 U.S.C., section 3335(b), reads as follows:

"As the needs of the service require, the Postmaster General may assign an

employee from time to time to perform, without change of compensation, duties,

and responsibilities, other than the duties and responsibilities specifically set

forth in his position description. If an employee is assigned for more than

thirty days in a calendar year to duties and responsibilities of a salary level which

is higher than the salary level to which his position is assigned, except to perform

service in a relief capacity for a supervisor granted compensatory time pursuant

to section 3573 of this title, the Postmaster General shall pay for the period of

his assignment in excess of thirty days, a basic salary computed in accordance

with the provisions of section 3559 of this title."

Prior to the cited decision of the Comptroller General, the Department was

of the opinion that this section permitted the Department to pay an employee

detailed to a higher level position at a rate of the higher level position in certain

situations before 30 days of eligible service in a calendar year. This action

seemed appropriate and legal on the following additional basis:

Section 807 of Public Law 68, 84th Congress, reads as follows:

"The Postmaster General is hereby authorized to issue such regulations as may

be necessary for the administration of this Act."

39 U.S.C., section 501, through the clause numbered (I) reads as follows:

"In addition to his other duties the Postmaster General shall—

(1) prescribe rules and regulations that he deems necessary to accomplish

the objectives of this title;".

Pursuant to the foregoing opinion, the Department has, from time to time,

found circumstances in which payment at a rate of the higher level position for

service therein, but before performance of 30 days of such service in the same

calendar year, is necessary to accomplish the objectives of Public Law 68, 84th

Congress. When it has found such circumstances, the Department has acted to

authorize the payment. The earliest such actions were taken in the period

immediately after the effective date of section 204(b), December 3, 1955. They

preceded the issuance of any regulations for the administration of this section

and were taken on an individual case basis. The first regulations that were

subsequently issued in March 1956 incorporated one particular circumstance in

which waiver of the so-called 30-day waiting period in the same calendar year was

allowed.

I mention these matters of administrative history to highlight the fact that

the departmental opinion under discussion is not recent. It does not go back

only to the time during which the particular regulation declared invalid by the

Comptroller General was under consideration in 1960. It goes back, instead, to

the very beginning of the Department's administration of Public Law 68, 84th

Congress. As experience in the administration of this law accumulated, additional circumstances justifying waiver came to light. When they did, the regulations were amended to include them. This process continued through the years,

the most recent addition being issued in November 1961, more than a year after

issuance of the particular regulation declared invalid by the Comptroller General.

It came as a surprise, therefore, when the Comptroller General, more than 6 years

after the law became effective, in ruling for the first time on this aspect of the

law, based his declaration that a particular one of these regulations is invalid on

his opinion that the Department lacks the authority to waive the 30-day waiting

period in the same calendar year under any circumstances.

84214-62-2
6 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

By the date of this Comptroller General's decision, the published regulations of the Postmaster General specified seven circumstances in which waiver was allowed. At this place in my statement, I am putting into the record a copy of the Postal Manual pages containing these regulations. On these pages the regu- lations are identified for ready consultation. Although these regulations plainly

set forth the nature of the circumstances in which waiver was allowed, they may not always disclose the reason for the judgment that waiver was appropriate in these circumstances. Accordingly, I am also putting into the record an explanatory statement, with an example, for each of these circumstances. These ex- planatory statements are attached to the Postal Manual pages containing the regulations.

The Comptroller General's decision declared invalid the regulation in. 756542a(4)(b). The last paragraph of the decision, containing this declara- tion, begins with an expression of the Comptroller General's opinion as to the meaning of section 204(b) which is contrary to the opinion of the Department underlying the issuance of all the concerned regulations. Therefore, the Department has necessarily suspended payments under all these regulations.

On February 19, 1962, Hon. David N. Henderson, House of Representatives,

wrote to the Comptroller General, asking that the General Accounting Office withhold any action otherwise necessary to change the existing procedure until such time as the Congress has had an opportunity to act on the bill, H.R. 10265, which is now under discussion and which he introduced on the same date. On February 26, 1962, the Comptroller General informed Congressman Henderson

that the General Accounting Office will withhold any action seeking recovery

of funds paid under the regulation prior to the date of the cited decision until the close of the current session of the Congress, but that the General Accounting

Office does not have the authority to authorize the continuation of payments

under the regulation. On the same date, the Postmaster General informed the

Comptroller General that, although the Department intends to adhere rigidly

to the decision, it does intend to press for legislation which would permit the

practices which the Comptroller General had found to be unlawful.

As matters now stand, therefore, unless the Congress enacts before the close

of the current session either H.R. 10265 or some other bill having language of the

same meaning, recovery will have to be undertaken of all payments made to

employees under the regulation declared invalid since December 3, 1955, and

the date of the decision of the Comptroller General declaring it invalid, February

1, 1962. It is estimated that these payments total about $14 million. A great

number of different employees received these payments, which it would be

necessary for them to refund. Section 316 of H.R. 10480, introduced on February 19, 1962, by Chairman Murray of the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service, House of Representatives, has language which, although worded differently than H.R. 10265, has the same meaning. Its passage, as part of the proposed Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962, supported by this administration,

would have the same effect as the passage of H.R. 10265.

Moreover, unless either H.R. 10265 or section 316 of H.R. 10480 is enacted

before the close of the current session of the Congress, employees will continue

to be deprived of the benefits of the regulations which it has been necessary to

suspend, and the Department will continue to be without authority either to

lift the suspension of these regulations or to exercise its judgment as to other

subsequently discovered circumstances in which payment of higher level compensation for service in higher level positions, before 30 days of such service in the

same calendar year, may be necessary to accomplish the objectives of the Postal

Field Service Compensation Act.

The Department needs the authority which H.R. 10265 would confer in order

to administer equitably the position evaluation and pay administration plans

established by the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955, as amended.

The circumstances set forth in the accompanying regulations illustrate the kinds

of circumstances in which this authority would be used, and the explanatory

statements attached to them illustrate the lines of reasoning that would underlie

the use of this authority. They demonstrate that the Department would use

this authority in a conservative and responsible manner. The Department

understands and agrees with the evident intent of the Congress that, in the

ordinary circumstances of assignment, from time to time, to the work of a higher

level position, 30 days of such assignment in the same calendar year precede

entitlement of the employee to payment at a rate of the higher level position.

The Department would object to any proposal that this condition be removed as

the general rule, for its removal as the general rule would be both unduly expensive

and as destructive of the administrative discretion needed as the opposite and

equally inflexible rule imposed by the Comptroller General's decision.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 7

In conclusion, our reasons for supporting the passage of this bill may be summarized as follows:

First, it is necessary to prevent actions for the recovery of funds paid in

the past to numbers of employees under regulations believed to be valid at the

time of the payments.

Second, it is necessary to restore the benefits suspended by reason of the

Comptroller General's decision.

Third, it is necessary to permit the Department to act reasonably on the

circumstances coming to its attention in the future that are analogous to

the circumstances set forth in the regulations now suspended.

For all these reasons, I wholeheartedly endorse both this bill and section 316 of

H.R. 10480.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. I will be pleased to

answer any questions that the subcommittee may have.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS

Postal Manual 756.542a(4) (a)

This regulation applies to an employee who is assigned recurringly and systematically to a different and higher level position than the one he occupies by reason

of an official personnel action. For example, he might be occupying the key position of distribution clerk, R.P.O., level 5, but his regularly scheduled tour of duty

provides for a majority of trips in the capacity of this key position and other trips

in the capacity of the standard position of clerk in charge, R.P.O., level 6. His

schedule might even be so constructed that he serves in the level 5 key position

while traveling in one direction between two terminals on certain runs and serves

in the level 6 standard position while traveling in the opposite direction between

the same two terminals on the same runs.

Postal Manual 756.542a(4)(b)

This regulation applies to an employee who has performed, in the immediately

preceding calendar year, more than 30 days of service in a different and higher

level position than the one he occupies by reason of an official personnel action.

For example, he might be an occupant of the key position of distribution clerk,

level 4, who was assigned during the immediately preceding calendar year for

35 days of service in the standard position of distribution and dispatch expediter,

level 5. For the last 5 of these days he received compensation at the applicable

rate of level 5. In the succeeding calendar year he is again assigned to serve on

certain days in the level 5 standard position.

Postal Manual 756.542a(6) (a)

This regulation applies to an employee who performs service in a postmaster

position two, three, or four levels higher than the key position of clerk, third-class

post office, level 2, which he occupies by reason of an official personnel action.

For example, he might be a substitute employee occupying this level 2 key position, earning $7.32 for 3 hours per day of service in it, who performs 2 days of

service in the key position of postmaster, third-class office, level 6, during the

absence on sick leave of the postmaster. On each of these 2 days the employee in

the example conforms to the 8-hour work schedule of the postmaster. Without

the regulation being explained, the employee in the example would be compensated in the amount of $19.52 for each of these 2 days, if he had not already performed 30 days of higher level service in the same calendar year, and he would be

compensated in the amount of $17.38 for each of the same 2 days, if he had already

performed 30 days of higher level service in the same calendar year. With the

regulation being explained, the employee in the example would be compensated

in the amount of $17.38 for each of these 2 days, irrespective of whether he had

already performed 30 days of higher level service in the same calendar year. The

amount of $17.38 is the daily rate of basic compensation that the employee would

earn if he were to be promoted to the level 6 postmaster key position.

The regulation being explained was issued to prevent instances, like the foregoing example, in which an employee might receive a larger amount of compensation for replacing the postmaster than he could receive if promoted to the postmaster position.

Postal Manual 756.542a(6)(b)

An employee to whom this regulation was applicable performs service in a

mobile organization when assigned to a higher level position than the one he

occupies, by reason of an official personnel action, in a stationary organization.
8 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

For example, he might be occupying the key position of distribution clerk, level 4, in the outgoing mails section of a post office, but is assigned to the key position

of distribution clerk, R.P.O., level 5, because of the absence from duty of the

employee who was previously scheduled to make a particular trip. Timekeeping

is performed in accordance with different rules for employees in mobile and

stationary organizations. Without the regulation being explained, timekeeping

would be performed in accordance with the stationary organization rules for the

level 5 key position service, if it is performed before completion of 30 days of such

service in the same calendar year, and would be performed in accordance with the

mobile organization rules if it is performed after completion of 30 days of such

service in the same calendar year. With the regulation being explained, timekeeping would be performed in accordance with the mobile organization rules for

the level 5 key position service, irrespective of whether the employee had already

performed 30 days of higher level service in the same calendar year.

The regulation being explained was issued to standardize the application of

timekeeping procedures for service in mobile organizations and prevent the

confusions attendant on the absence of such standardization.

Postal Manual 756.542a(6)(c)

This regulation, like Postal Manual 756.542a(4) (b), was issued because the

purpose of the general rule of 30 days of higher level service in a calendar year

before entitlement to higher level compensation has been satisfied in the circumstance set forth by the regulation.

Postal Manual 756.542a(6)(d)

An employee to whom this regulation was applicable can perform service in the

particular higher level position at only one time during a year and for only a

short period at this one time. When called upon to perform this service, he

makes an extraordinary contribution to meeting the most complex workload

problem that the post office experiences. For example, he might be occupying,

by reason of an official personnel action, the key position of distribution clerk,

level 4, but is assigned during the Christmas period to the standard position of

auxiliary foreman, Christmas, level 6. Without the regulation, there would be

many instances in which employees like this example could not receive any pay

recognition for their unusual service. Therefore, the regulation was issued to

assure such recognition in all cases.

Postal Manual 756.542a(6)(e)

This regulation, like Postal Manual 756.542a(6) (a), was issued to prevent

instances in which an employee might receive a larger amount of compensation

for replacing the postmaster than he could receive if promoted to the postmaster

position.

Mr. WENCHEL. We have Mr. Block here, the Director of the

Compensation Division who will be glad, I am sure, to answer any

questions which you may have.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Block, would you like to highlight the statement and then perhaps the members would like to ask you some

questions.

Mr. BLOCK. Essentially, we thought we had authority under the

law to pay an employee for a period of duty in higher level positions

without waiting for a 30-day qualifying period to expire under situations which we thought were appropriate.

For example, a situation in which a third-class office clerk took the

place of an absent postmaster. We thought that the employee was

entitled to the higher level compensation because he was performing

all of the duties of the postmaster and there was no alternative in our

estimation. We have also waived the 30-day requirement in situations where an employee from a post office, stationary installation,

went aboard an R.P.O. car, railway mail car, and performed the

duties of an R.P.O. clerk.

A stationary clerk is level 4 and an R.P.O. clerk is level 5. An

R.P.O. clerk is given the level 5 primarily because of the hazards of

the operation. He performs his duties in a rolling car and there are
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 9

frequent working conditions which take place aboard a car which are

not the same as in a stationary installation.

We felt that that was a situation in which the employee should

immediately receive the extra pay.

Those are just a couple of examples and we have a few others, if

you would like.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. How long has this practice been going on of compensating such employees for these services?

Mr. BLOCK. On an individual basis, ever since 1956, questions like

that have come up. We have waived the 30-day requirement on an

individual basis since 1956.

In subsequent years, we issued regulations to cover the broad cases

and as recently as 1960, we issued one broad coverage: for the thirdclass clerk covering for a postmaster; for a stationery clerk covering

for an R.P.O. clerk; for an employee designated as a foreman of

Christmas assistants; and for situations in which an employee, paid

in the preceding year in a higher level, could carry over that credit

for subsequent years.

Mr. DANIELS. Is this a correct statement then: If the employee

performed the services of it higher level, even though he did not perform such services for 30 days in a current year, he was compensated

for such services, since 1956?

Mr. BLOCK. That would be on an individual case basis and in some

cases only. We cannot say all employees were covered.

Mr. DANIELS. But it has been done?

Mr. BLOCK. It has been done.

Mr. HENDERSON. What would be the Department's estimate of

the amount of repayments that would have to be repaid by employees

if the bill were not enacted in the light of the Comptroller's decision?

Mr. BLOCK. About $13. million would have to be repaid.

Mr. HENDERSON. What would be the estimate of the additional

cost of the enactment of the bill?

Mr. BLOCK. It will be about $250,000 a year.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Johansen, do you have questions of the

witness?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I want to apologize to the witness since I was

talking to counsel trying to get myself filled in on a little background,

but would the witness just state very briefly what cannot be done now

that could be done if this bill were enacted? I may be asking the

witness to repeat himself and I apologize for it.

Mr. BLOCK. Under the law as interpreted now by the Comptroller

General, an employee who performs higher level work, for example,

a level 4 clerk taking the place of an absent foreman, under the law

he would have to serve 30 working days covering for that absent

employee before he would be entitled to the higher level pay.

On the 31st day of higher level coverage, then he would be given the

higher level pay.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Starting then, not retroactive?

Mr. BLOCK. Starting on the 31st day he would be entitled to higher

level pay as though promoted to that job.

What we have done in a few situations is that we have said the

employee was entitled to the higher level pay immediately and not

on the 31st day.
10 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. JOHANSEN. Would this still make it discretionary with the

Department?

Mr. BLOCK. The way Mr. Henderson's bill is written it would make

it discretionary. We would be able to select those situations which

we felt were unusual enough to warrant waiving the 30 days.

Mr. JOHANSEN. In other words, you would have discretion to do it

if you saw fit and as it is now, you have no discretion under the

Comptroller General's rule?

Mr. BLOCK. That is right, sir.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Is this a process that must be repeated each year?

In other words, if it happens to me as an employee this year, I have

to fulfill the 30 days and then I go back to my regular job after maybe

a total of 2 months, and in those 2 months I am only paid at the higher

level for 1 month under the existing situation?

Mr. BLOCK. That is right.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Whereas then, next year, if the same thing is

repeated, the 30-day interval would still apply?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes; that is correct.

For example, we have had situations where a lower level employee

covered for a higher level employee, say at the end of the year, and

he started covering in November. The absent man was out sick

with maybe an unusual operation, and he is out November, December, January, and February. The lower level employee could cover

for him in November, and in December he would be paid at the higher

level.

The way we have interpreted it in the past, we would let him continue drawing the higher level pay in January and February.

Under the ruling now of the Comptroller General, at the end of

the year, December 31, he is finished with the higher level pay and

has to start a brand new waiting period and not be paid in January

even though he is doing the same job on a continuing basis.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I would think that would be ridiculous on its face.

What about the initial 30-day period? Would the Department be

free to waive that?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHANSEN. The first time, the first year?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes, sir.

Under Mr. Henderson's bill, we would be permitted to waive it.

Mr. JOHANSEN. What was the original theory back of the 30-day

period? Possibly it was a matter of a person's not having the experience or the qualifications?

Mr. BLOCK. That is right. It was a matter of developing into the

job, giving management an opportunity to see how well he was doing

the job.

Mr. JOHANSEN. He had the 30 days once. The fact that it ceases

to be 1962 and becomes 1963, he does not lose the experience or

whatever qualifications he gained by that 30 days, does he?

Mr. BLOCK. That is correct.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions.

You testified the additional cost would be $250,000?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Per annum?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes, sir.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 11

Mr. DANIELS. And that the amount of rebates involved was $1

million?

Mr. BLOCK. About $1Y3 million.

Mr. DANIELS. Is it the intention of the Comptroller General, if

this law were not enacted, to seek rebates from all persons who were

unjustly paid under his interpretation?

Mr. BLOCK. I would suggest you might ask the Comptroller General's representatives. They are present here.

Mr. DANIELS. What is the attitude of the Department on this

legislation?

Mr. BLOCK. We are entirely in favor of it. We are very much

interested in having it passed.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. 1 might ask the counsel a question. vries,

Is it your opinion that if the Comptroller says that it m i. .e recollected, that burden will be on the Postmaster Genera ithd the

Department?

Mr. WENCHEL. Yes, sir. S JUN 12 19 62

Mr. JOHANSEN. One further question.

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Under existing law

'

is it optional with respec

first 30-day waiting period? Is any discretion involved?

Mr. BLOCK. It was our interpretation that it was optional on management's part to waive it or require it. The Comptroller General

said we had no such option.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Will it be optional for the first 30 days' waiting

period now?

Mr. BLOCK. Under the proposed law; yes, sir.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Would you think there might be any possibility of

discrimination or favoritism in the exercise of that option?

Mr. BLOCK. I do not think so because what we are trying to do is

set up broad principles and regulations.

I have copies of our regulations that have been declared improper

by the Comptroller General. These regulations I would like to submit for the record. They indicate what we are trying to do on a

broad principle basis.

As an illustration, the stationary clerk going aboard an RPO car;

it would be automatic under that kind of a situation and not a matter

of some administrator's discretion.

Mr. JOHANSEN. It would be automatic that the pay started immediately?

Mr. BLOCK. If our regulations so provided.

In other words, it would be the Postmaster General who would

decide how this would be applied and not a regional director, or not a

postmaster. This would be the regulation and this is how it would

have to be applied.

Mr. JOHANSEN. In other words, it would have to come to the Postmaster General for approval?

Mr. BLOCK. Not on an individual basis, but the Postmaster General

would set a broad rule.

Mr. JOHANSEN. He would set up the guidelines as to those categories of situations in which it became effective immediately?

Mr. BLOCK. That is right, sir.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Thank you.

(The documents referred to follow:)
12 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

756.5 Compensation: Pay Administration

756.5 ASSIGNMENTS TO EXTRA DUTIES

.51 GENERAL ASSIGNMENT CONDITIONS

As the needs of the service require, an employee may be assigned from time

to time to perform duties and responsibilities other than the duties and responsibilities specifically set forth in his position description. Such assignments may be made under conditions set forth in part 714.

.52 SAME OR LOWER LEVEL POSITION

An employee may be assigned to a position in the same level or in a lower

level, without change in compensation. If the detail extends beyond 90 days,

a POD Form 50, reflecting the detail from regular duties, must be processed.

.53 POSITION UNDER ANOTHER SCHEDULE

Assignment of an employee to a position under another schedule may be

made without change in compensation. See 756.52 for procedure if the detail extends beyond 90 days.

.54 HIGHER LEVEL POSITION

.541 Rate of Compensation

When an employee performs the duties of a higher level position, except

when he relieves a supervisor on compensatory time, he must receive higher

level pay for all time spent in such work in excess of 30 days in a calendar

year.

.542 Creditable Service

a. Qualifying Period

(1) In a Calendar Year

Calendar year means January 1 to December 31. Eligible service

in any level or levels above the salary level of the employee's position

shall be included in accumulating the credit for 30 days of service in

a higher level. Thus, a level PFS-6 employee who serves for 10

days in a position in PFS-8 and 20 days in a position in PFS-7 in

a calendar year will have completed the required 30 days of service

in a higher level. After completion of the 30 days of qualifying

service in a calendar year, the employee is eligible to receive pay for

services performed during the remainder of that calendar year in

any higher level position.

(2) On a Day

Days mean working days. They need not be consecutive. Performance at a higher level for 4 hours or more on any one day shall

count as a day for purposes of establishing credit toward the qualifying 30 days of service in a higher level. A holiday occurring during

a period of assignment to a position in a higher level shall not count

as a qualifying day unless service is actually performed at the higher

level on the holiday.

(3) On a Trip

For employees in PTS assigned to road duty, trip value shall be

used in computing the number of days creditable toward 30 days

service in a higher level.

(4) In a Previous Calendar Year

(a) An annual rate employee, regularly scheduled on intermittent

workdays or runs to perform the work of two separate positions

in different salary levels, who has been assigned to the lower

level position in accordance with the provisions of 757.162 shall

not be required to requalify for higher level compensation if he

received p(iy at the higher level during the preceding calendar

year; if the qualifying period of 30 days was not completed in the

preceding calendar year, the service credited in the higher level

position shall be carried forward and combined with creditable

service in any higher level position in the succeeding calendar

year.

Personnel Transmittal Letter 52, 4-20-59
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 13

Compensation: Pay Administration 756.542b

(b) An employee who has once established eligibility for higher level

compensation is not required to requalify year after year. So long

as he received compensation in the preceding calendar year for

service in a level above the current level of his position, he shall

be paid for all higher level service performed in the then current

calendar yew..

(5) Upon Promotion

When an employee who has been performing service in a higher

level position or positions is promoted to a higher level position, all

time creditable toward the 30 days of qualifying service in a calendar year in positions in levels above the level of the position to

which he is promoted shall be applied toward the new period of 30

days of qualifying service in a calendar year required by reason of

such promotion.

(6) Without Prior Qualifying Service

(a) An employee in a third-class post office, who is designated to take

charge of the post office while the postmaster is absent on approved

leave or without leave or when there is a vacancy, shall be eligible

immediately for higher level compensation upon assumption of

the duties of the postmaster.

(b) A post office employee who is detailed to road duty in an RPO

or an HP0 in a higher level position shall be eligible immediately

for higher level compensation. Pay for service as a distribution

clerk, RPO or HPO, PFS-5, shall be at the appropriate substitute

rate. Pay for road duty in positions in PFS-6 or above shall be

computed as if rendered in a surplus capacity.

(c) An employee demoted to a lower level position shall, upon detail

to a position in or at an intermediate level below the level from

which demoted, be eligible immediately for higher level compensation.

(d) An employee who is temporarily assigned to an authorized auxiliary supervisory position during the Christmas mailing period

shall be eligible for higher level compensation.

(e) An employee in a second-class office, other than an assistant

postmaster, who is designated to take charge of the post office

while the postmaster is absent on approved leave or without

leave or when there is a vacancy, shall be eligible immediately

for higher level compensation upon assumption of the duties of

the postmaster.

b. Qualifying Position

(1) An employee will receive credit toward the qualifying 30 days and

resulting compensation thereafter for the performance of higher

level duties if the duties are not a part of his defined position and,

therefore, were not considered in the assignment of his salary level.

For example, an assistant postmaster would not be paid at the postmaster's salary level while serving in the absence of the postmaster,

because his defined position of assistant postmaster includes the duty

of assuming complete responsibility and authority for the post office in

the postmaster's absence.

(2) Service at the higher level shall be in one or more positions which

have been authorized, defined, and assigned to a salary level in the

usual manner. To be credited with service at the higher level, the

employee must perform all essential duties of the higher level position. Performance of a segment of the duties of another position

does not necessarily mean that the employee is performing at the

higher leval.

Personnel Transmittal Letter 84, 11-6-61

84214-62-3
14 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

757.153 Compensation: Position Evaluation

stitutes and other employees who perform occasional service or who are

called in only for short emergencies should not be counted in ordinary circumstances. When it is necessary to establish full-time equivalents from

substitute man-hours used, the work-hours for the period under consideration

should be counted on the basis of an 8-hour workday. When the work force

varies as to numbers during a tour, the count should be determined from

the largest number of persons supervised for at least 4 hours.

.153 Supervisory Responsibilities. Elements in supervision include responsibility for laying out the work for employees, training them in their

assignments, reviewing their work, and effectively recommending personnel

actions. Responsibilities limited to technical guidance and review, audit of

work performance, or examining employees or functions are not supervisory

responsibilities for purposes of position evaluation. The number of employees supervised is not a yardstick in evaluating supervisory positions to

be used to the exclusion of other elements which bear on the level of supervisory responsibilities.

.16 EVALUATING MIXED ASSIGNMENTS

.161 Regularly Scheduled Every Day. When an annual rate employee is

scheduled every workday (in PTS, every run) to perform the work of two

separately defined positions in two different levels, he is placed in the position of the higher level. The duties of the position in the lower level, while

included in his work assignment, represent extra duties in relation to his

official position, and they do not affect the pay level of the employee.

.162 Regularly Scheduled on Intermittent Days in Two Positions. When an

annual rate employee is regularly scheduled on intermittent workdays or

runs to perform the work of two separate positions in different salary levels,

he is placed in the position in which more than 50 percent of his time

is spent. If he is placed in the lower level position, he will be paid in accordance with 756.544 for time served in excess of 30 days in a calendar year

in the high level position. If the time is equally divided, he will be placed

in the position in the higher level.

.163 Regularly Scheduled on Intermittent Days to More Than Two Positions.

When an annual rate employee is regularly scheduled on intermittent workdays or runs to perform the work of more than two positions in different

salary levels, and less than 50 percent of his time is spent in a single position, the total work assignment of the employee will be separately defined

as a position and ranked in its appropriate salary level.

.164 Regularly Scheduled To Perform Work in Two Positions in the Same Level.

When an annual rate employee is regularly scheduled to perform the work

of two or more positions in the same salary level, he will be assigned to

the position in which more than 50 percent of his time is spent. If the

work is evenly divided between two positions, or if less than 50 percent of

his time is spent in a single position, the work assignment of the employee

will be separately defined and an appropriate title will be assigned.

.165 Relief Assignments. Where relief assignments are predicated on

availability and not on a specialized background of experience in the particular positions in which the relief work will be performed, general rules

on the evaluation of mixed assignments may not be applicable. Where

actual differences in difficulty of duties and weight of responsibilities are

not distinguishable as to level among the various positions in which the

relief work is being performed, the relief assignments should be evaluated

without regard to the fact that the assignments pertain to relieving incumbents of positions in different levels.

Personnel Transmittal Letter 52, 4-20-59
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 15

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me ask you a further question along that line.

Suppose you had a clerk in level 4 who was assigned to a higher

administrative position, let us say a level 6. At the time of that assignment, you could not determine that it would be necessary for him to

work a full 30 days. It might be estimated that his working period

would be 15 or 20 days and at that time, under the bill as proposed,

you would have discretion as to whether to pay him or not.

If, in the same case, it was a certainty he would be working for 90

days, or 4 months, would you also have the discretion to begin the

higher pay immediately on the first day of work?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes, sir. If we knew that the absent supervisor was

going to be gone 90 days, under this bill we could issue a rule to start

higher pay immediately.

What we do now, for each man who works higher level duty, a record

is maintained. He might perform 2 days in Feburary, 3 days in March,

and 1 day in April, and so forth. We have a record maintained in

each post office as to the higher level so that on his 31st day he starts

receiving higher level pay.

It could be on a scattered basis.

Mr. JOHANSEN. It would have to be in the same calendar year, or

the process starts all over again?

Mr. BLOCK. Correct, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is under present law.

Mr. JOHANSEN. That is what I mean, yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. Would he be entitled to receive compensation for

services performed in the higher level if he had worked less than 30

days?

Mr. BLOCK. Under present law?

Mr. DANIELS. Under present law, and what would it be under the

proposed law?

Mr. BLOCK. Under the present law he would not be entitled to it

until 30 days in 1 calendar year. Under the proposed bill, it would

be based on the situation as outlined in our regulations. The Postmaster General would issue regulations indicating those situations

in which 30 days would not be required.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We appreciate the fine statement you have made and the brevity

of it.

The next witness is Raymond H. Dixon, attorney-adviser for the

Office of the General Counsel, General Accounting Office. He is

accompanied by Mr. Charles E. Eckert and Mr. Max Hirschhorn.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND DIXON, ATTORNEY-ADVISER, GENERAL

ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES E. ECKERT,

LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY, AND MAX HIRSCHHORN, ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR OF AUDITS FOR THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. It is

very short and I think it covers our position with respect to this

matter and I would like to read it, if I may.

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.
16 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 1

am Raymond H. Dixon an attorney-adviser in the Office of the General

Counsel, General Accounting Office. Accompanying me are Mr.

Charles E. Eckert, legislative attorney from our Office of Legislative

Liaison and Mr. Max Hirschhorn, Assistant Director from our Civil

Accounting and Auditing Division.

We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee

during its consideration of H.R. 10265, proposing to amend 39 U.S.C.

3335(b).

That section provides, in pertinent part, that:

If an employee is assigned for more than 30 days in a calendar year to duties

and responsibilities of a salary level which is higher than the salary level to which

his position is assigned, except to perform service in a relief capacity for a supervisor granted compensatory time pursuant to section 3573 of this title, the Postmaster General shall pay for the period of his assignment in excess of 30 days, a

basic salary computed in accordance with the provisions of section 3559 of this

title.

In our decision B-138999, dated February 1, 1962, we considered

the validity of section 756.542a.(4)(b) of the Postal Manual. That

section then read, in pertinent part, as follows:

An employee who has once established eligibility for higher level compensation

is not required to requalify year after year. So long as he received compensation

in the preceding calendar year for service in a level above the current level of his

position, he shall be paid for all higher level service performed in the then current

calendar year.

We concluded in that decision that the foregoing postal regulation

was invalid because it did not require the employee to perform 30

days of higher level service each calendar year in order to qualify for

higher level pay, which, in our opinion, is required by the statutory

provision. While other parts of section 756.542 were not involved

in our decision any part thereof not meeting the 30-day qualifying

period in the statute as interpreted in our decision would also be

covered thereby and considered invalid.

As a result of our decision the Post Office Department seeks legislation permitting the exceptions represented by the foregoing regulations

and in addition the validation of the overpayments resulting from the

statute and our decision.

On March 15, 1962, we reported on H.R. 10265 to the committee.

We pointed out therein that we understood that section 1, which

proposes to add a sentence at the end of 39 U.S.C. 3335(b) granting

the Postmaster General authority to waive the 30-day requirement

of that section as he deems advisable, has for its purpose the reinstatement by the Postmaster General, effective on or after the date of

enactment of H.R. 10265, of the regulations of the Postal Manual

referred to above without a change in the existing language of that

statutory provision. We believe that section 1 will accomplish that

purpose. In addition it will permit the Postmaster General to make.

other exceptions as he deems advisable.

Section 2 of the bill has for its purpose the validation of payments

made under the regulations in section 756.542 of the Postal Manual

We believe that section will accomplish the purpose.

The granting or denying of such discretionary authority to the

Postmaster General as proposed in the bill is a matter of policy for

consideration of the Congress. We do not oppose favorable consideration of the bill.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 17

If there are any questions concerning this matter we shall try to

answer them.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. No questions.

MT. HENDERSON. MT. Johansen?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Just one question.

I still want to get my own mind straightened out on this thing.

As it is now, the first time an employee goes into a mandatory 30-day

waiting period, the first time an employee goes into a higher level

duty, the most objectionable feature of that is that it has to be

repeated every calendar year; is that correct?

Mr. DIXON. That is right, sir. In the law it says, "in a calendar

year."

Mr. JOHANSEN. Under the Henderson bill, there would not be the

mandatory 30-day period for the first time, would there?

Mr. DIXON. The 30-day requirement still remains. The language

in the existing statute is not changed at all.

Mr. JOHANSEN. The first 30-day waiting period is still in the

statute?

Mr. DIXON. But the Henderson bill, H.R. 10265, will create an

exception to the existing statutory language and allow the Postmaster General to issue regulations where he deems it advisable,

that certain groups will not have to wait 30 days. They do not want

to change the existing language regarding the 30-day requirement in

the statute. That will stay, but it puts all the discretion in the Postmaster General to make these exceptions where he deems it advisable.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I am sure that the witness is not contradicting

himself. I am sure it is the member up here who misses the point.

You say the 30-day requirement is still in the statute, but it may

be waived by the Postmaster General?

Mr. DIXON. It may be waived if H.R. 10265 is enacted.

Mr. JOHANSEN. As it now stands, it may not be waived?

Mr. DIXON. That is right.

Mr. JOHANSEN. It is a transfer of discretionary power to the

Postmaster General?

Mr. DIXON. In Public Law 68, Congress set up this 30-day requirement. That is in the Postal Service Compensation Act of 1955.

Congress set up this 30 days and the Henderson bill will permit

exceptions to the 30-day requirement required by the existing statute;

yes sir.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I was looking for a middleground, Mr. Chairman,

between waiving the first 30-day waiting period, or making it discretionary.

Mr. DIXON. This legislation will do that; yes, sir.

Mr. JOHANSEN. That makes it discretionary?

Mr. DIXON. It makes it discretionary.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Would it be possible to have a provision that made

it mandatory in the first instance and thereafter either discretionary

or spell out specifically that once the initial 30-day waiting period has

occurred, thereafter it shall not be required?

Mr. DIXON. It could be written that way but, as we understand

this bill, it was desired not to touch the existing statutory provision.

The Department may want to use it sometime and there will be

instances, as I understand it, where people will be required, lots of

them, to do 30 days of higher level service.
18 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. JOHANSEN. Now all of them are required?

Mr. DIXON. That is right, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. May I clarify my own thinking on this as well as

the record.

The procedure that has been followed in the past under the postal

regulations has, in certain instances, not required the first 30 days' waiting period?

Mr. DIXON. Under their regulations; yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. This has been going on, so to speak, in the Department for sometime?

Mr. DIXON. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. As well as the point that there have been some

payments not made under the calendar-year requirement.

Mr. DIXON. That is right, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Does this clear that up?

Mr. JOHANSEN. It certainly explains why the Comptroller General

ruled as he did, I would say.

Mr. DIXON. The statute requires 30 days in a calendar year.

There is no discretion existing in the present language.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I am not criticizing the Comptroller General.

Mr. DIXON. I am just trying to explain our situation.

Mr. JOHANSEN. It is one more basis for my respect and admiration

for the General Accounting Office.

Mr. HENDERSON. If we do not give discretion with regard to the

first 30-day waiting period, would it be the position of the Comptroller

General that those persons who had been paid under the former regulations and procedures of the Department would have to repay such

amounts, such remuneration as they had received under those

circumstances?

Mr. DIXON. It would, sir, because it is a violation of a statutory

provision and none of us in the Comptroller General's office would

have any authority to waive such overpayments.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. HENDERSON. The million and one-third dollars estimated includes both the overpayments that have been made for the first 30-day

waiting period, and those payments that were made in violation of the

law for the calendar period requirements?

Mr. DIXON. I presume it covers all cases.

Mr. HENDERSON. Covers all cases?

Mr. DIXON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. If we did not enact the bill as introduced, did not

change the law and require the mandatory 30-day waiting period, we

would have the additional problem of segregating out those payments

which were paid in the first 30-day waiting period?

Mr. DIXON. I imagine it would be a big job.

Mr. HENDERSON. Further, would it be the position of the Comptroller General that these repayments would have to be made by the

employees if the law is not amended?

Mr. DIXON. I think that we would have to exert every effort that

is required of us by law to secure them, yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. This requirement would be placed on the Postmaster General?
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 19

Mr. DixoN. Excuse me. There would be many instances where

you would not be able to collect; employees will have died or have left

the service, and in those cases probably you would never get the

money.

Mr. HENDERSON. Employees still in the service, the burden would

be on the Postmaster General to collect it back?

Mr. DIXON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman?

MT. HENDERSON. Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. I have a couple of thoughts on this.

In the case of collection of overpayments, is it your opinion that it

would create undue hardship in a good many cases by insisting upon

them?

Mr. DIXON. I would not know that, but I imagine that you would

get that argument immediately from the persons involved. That

would be the first thing they would say.

Mr. DANIELS. Under the proposed legislation, where a man performs the services of a higher level grade and works for, let us say, 10

days or 15 days, does the proposed law permit the payment of the

salary in the higher grade?

Mr. DIXON. If it is covered by these regulations. Right in the

statute itself there is an exception that you cannot pay higher level

compensation if a person is substituting for someone on compensatory

time. It varies according to what their regulations provide.

Mr. DANIELS. It would depend on the regulations promulgated by

the Postmaster General?

Mr. DIXON. Yes, sir; by the Postmaster General.

Mr. HENDERSON. Any further questions?

If not, thank you very much, Mr. Dixon.

The next witness is Mr. James H. Rademacher, assistant secretarytreasurer of the National Association of Letter Carriers.

Mr. Rademacher, we will be very glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. RADEMACHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARYTREASURER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER C ARRIERS

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear as to the status of

Mr. Rademacher's legal residence at the present time but he was

formerly from the State of Michigan, and we take considerable pride

in that.

Mr. RADEMACHER. We both do.

Mr. HENDERSON. You may proceed, Mr. Rademacher.

Mr. RADEMACHER. Mr. Chairman, my statement, like the previous

one, is brief and I would like to have the opportunity of reading it.

MT. HENDERSON. Certainly.

Mr. RADEMACHER. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, my name is James H. Rademacher. I am assistant secretarytreasurer of the National Association of Letter Carriers, which is

located in Washington, D.C., and which represents 155,000 letter

carriers and other Federal workers.

I appear here today for the purpose of endorsing H.R. 10265,

legislation sponsored by Congressman David N. Henderson, which

would validate the long-standing opinion of the Post Office Department concerning certain provisions of Public Law 68, 84th Congress.
20 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

There are two principal reasons why our organization wholeheartedly endorses this legislation—(1) the serious effect on morale

if employees were to be requested to reimburse the Post Office Department for salaries received which have been indicated by the Comptroller General to be invalid, and (2) the simple justice of employees

receiving salaries commensurate with their increased responsibilities.

We have no means of knowing the amount of money which will be

reimbursed by dedicated postal workers who were assuming higher

level duties and being paid for same until such time as the Comptroller

General ruled on February 1, 1962. Regardless of the amount of

reimbursement to the Department, the very fact of requesting these

same employees to now reimburse the Department would cause

definite lowering of morale; in addition would cause employees to

lose respect for those officials who administer the laws and policies

of the Post Office Department.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Would the witness agree that maybe there is the

same lack of respect where it happens to be an error on the Department's part with respect to income taxes which results in the citizen

having to pay a little more?

Mr. RADEMACHER. I decline to agree with the gentleman from

Michigan.

Certainly it is the responsibility of the Comptroller General to rule

fairly and impartially on all matters submitted for his attention.

However, when an interpretation of enacted legislation causes such

a morale-shattering action, it behooves the Congress to make the

necessary corrections if their original intent was to pay an employee

detailed to a higher level position at the rate of that position prior to

30 days of eligibility in a calendar year.

The Department undoubtedly acted in good faith and it appears

that it is now the responsibility of this committee to take corrective

action and we are indeed pleased that Congressman Henderson has

seen fit to introduce this legislation, and further that this subcommittee is making a determined effort to establish the important factors

surrounding this problem.

The second reason for this organization wholeheartedly endorsing

the Henderson measure is our keen desire to have our members, who

serve in a supervisory capacity, paid for their increased responsibility.

It is not as often as we would like to have it that a letter carrier receives

recognition by being placed in a position of higher responsibility either

on a temporary or permanent basis. In some instances if a letter

carrier is selected for performance of duties in the higher level, this is

the only recognition that he receives through his career and although

his appointment may be on a temporary basis, he is appreciative of

the recognition that he has received. It is possible because of the

length of service and age of a letter carrier that his recognition in such

appointments be only temporary, and, for that reason and others,

it is important that he be paid a pay equal to the responsibilities

which he has undertaken.

The President of the United States in his many appeals to the Congress relative to the passage of pay reforms has stated "too many.

Federal employees are underpaid with proportion to their responsibilities." Further, in his recommendations urging pay reforms, the

President has said "there should be equal pay for substantially equal

work and pay distinctions shall be maintained in keeping with work

and performance distinctions."
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 21

Our organization feels that an employee in a lower level who has

been asked to assume the responsibilities of the employee in the level

of management should be paid commensurate wages from the onset of

such appointment and not after a certain period of time. Not only

would failure to provide commensurate wages be degrading to the

higher level official, but it would not encourage incentive, enthusiasm,

or initiative on the part of the appointee.

We trust that this subcommittee will find it possible to render a

favorable report on H.R. 10265 in order to prevent the necessity of

requesting reimbursement of alleged invalid payments from already

underpaid postal workers. In making this plea we want to also

commend those responsible for not placing an effective date on the

Comptroller General's Decision B-138999 until such time as Congress

reevaluates this entire matter. We want to thank the committee for

providing us with this opportunity to appear on behalf of his meritorious legislation.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are there any questions?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I would like to ask a question of counsel if he can

throw some light because of the qualifying clause in the last sentence

which our witness read. Is there any question it was the intent with

respect to the first instance that they should not be paid prior to the

30-day period? Was that not clearly the intent of the earlier law?

Mr. MARTINI'. As far as I can ascertain I believe it was the intent

not to pay them during that first 30 days.

Mr. JOHANSEN. So that what is under consideration here, so that

we can understand it, is that that intent is going to be changed in this

law?

Mr. MARTINY. I might add that the existing regulations do require

in most cases that they perform the first 30 days before they get any

higher level pay. It is the very minor exception where they get the

higher level pay without performing the higher level service for 30

days.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Would not the reverse be true under this legislation

and would it not be the minor exception that they did not get paid at

the higher level for the first 30 days?

Mr. MARTINY. The Department has stated in their report that

they intend to follow the regulations that were in effect before the

decision of the Comptroller General was rendered.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Then the enactment of this bill would not be

construed as making mandatory the payment at the higher level for

the first 30 days? I wonder if somebody from the Department would

comment on that?

Mr. BLOCK. Our intention is to apply the regulations as we have

now written them, and in many, many instances 30 days will still be

required. In a few instances 30 days will not be required.

Mr. HENDERSON. You would not interpret the enactment of this

bill as meaning that you would have to pay anyone in the past for

services they had not been paid for?

Mr. BLOCK. No this would be on a prospective basis.

I might also add that the way we viewed the law before the

Comptroller General's decision, it meant to us that after 30 days a

mandatory requirement set in and a man must be paid for the 31st

and 32d and so day of performance. The law only prescribed the

length of time after which it must be paid.
22 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. JOHANSEN. It also prohibited the time in which it could not be paid, the first 30 days?

Mr. BLOCK. That was the opinion of the Comptroller General. It

was our thought that the law only set the time in which it must be paid and any time prior to that was discretionary.

Mr. JOHANSEN. You would still regard it as discretionary?

Mr. BLOCK. If Mr. Henderson's bill is passed; yes.

Mr. JOHANSEN. But you will not construe it as being mandatory

to pay it during the initial 30 days?

Mr. BLOCK. In some situations we would make it mandatory that

we pay it and in some it will not be. It will be spelled out in our regulations.

Mr. WENCHEL. I think it would be our interpretation it would not

be mandatory. We will exercise our discretion to pay it in some instances but it will not be mandatory.

Mr. JOHANSEN. If you are placed under pressures to pay it, will

you have any leg to stand on in refusing it?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes. We will spell out in our regulations clearly, we

hope, the situations in which payment will be made immediately.

Other situations will require 30 days. For instance, we may have a

distribution clerk, level 4, who has never previously covered for an

absent foreman. Normally we would expect him to put in 30 days,

both for his own help to become acquainted with the work and to give

us an opportunity to observe him at the work. We would require

30 days.

There are other situations in which a man immediately does the

full scale of the job and he undertakes it under all conditions of the

job. There is no question that he is performing the job at level 5.

Mr. JOHANSEN. And he assumes all the hazards of the job?

Mr. BLOCK. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. Is that Mr. Rademacher's position?

Mr. RADEMACHER. Yes. I agree with Mr. Johansen's statement

that when you allow a policy to be discretionary there is some element

of suspicion. Here we have a policy set by the Comptroller.General

that if the supervisor has a compensatory day off a level-4 man cannot

receive the pay of level 5 while performing those duties. That is an

exception. And there is the other exception Mr. Block gave that if

the man is not qualified he should not receive the higher pay. We

disagree with that. We feel in order to have incentive you should

pay a man promptly when he is a supervisor. But that is for you

to determine.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I am trying to establish the legislative intent.

This member, at least, does not believe this proposed legislation makes

mandatory the immediate increase in pay.

Mr. RADEMACHER. That is our sentiment.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to ask Dr. Block if he can advise

the committee if the Postmaster General has any plans at the present

time to change the rules and regulations from what you have been

operating under?

Mr. BLOCK. No; we have no plans to 'change the regulations at all.

We feel they adequately cover the situation. We would like to have

the 30-day waiver apply.

Mr. HENDERSON. Go right ahead, Mr. Rademacher.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 23

Mr. RADEMACHER. I would like to call your attention to the closing

paragraph of my statement, which I think should be emphasized.

We want to commend those responsible for not placing an effective

date on the Comptroller General's decision until such time as Congress

evaluates this entire matter.

Mr. HEND ERSON. I can say the Comptroller General very promptly,

at my request, advised he would withhold this matter until we could

have hearings and determine what we would do on this.

One further question to clarify your statement on page 2, where you

say, the Congress can make the necessary corrections if their original

intent was to pay an employee detailed to a higher level position at

the rate of that position prior to 30 days of eligibility in a calendar

year.

I would like to add as author of the bill that without concluding

that it was Congress' original intent, in the light of what has actually

been done and the inequities or hardships that would be inevitable in

carrying out the Comptroller General's decision, it was my thinking

the Congress should enact this legislation whether or not it was the

original intent of Congress, so long as we keep it within the strict

bounds that I think the testimony this morning has shown it would

be kept.

Mr. JOHANSEN. My feeling is we should make clear the present

intent if we amend this, and I agree with all the witnesses there should

not be an enforced collection of any of these alleged overpayments.

Mr. H END ERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Rademacher.

The next witness is Mr. John F. O'Connor, legislative director of the

United Federation of Postal Clerks.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. O'CONNOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF

THE UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

For identification purposes and the record I am John F. O'Connor,

legislative director of the United Federation of Postal Clerks with

offices at 817 14th Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

The name of our organization is a new name that came about as a

result of recent mergers of the National Federation of Post Office

Clerks, the United National Association of Post Office Craftsmen, the

National Postal Transport Association and several locals of the United

Postal Workers. At this time we represent approximately 145,000 post

office clerks throughout the country.

We desire to express our appreciation to Congressman Henderson

for the introduction of H.R. 10265 and to the chairman for scheduling

early hearings.

We are wholeheartedly in favor of the objective of H.R. 10265 to

provide that employees who are called upon to perform higher level

duties and responsibilities shall be compensated at the salary level

of that higher level position without undue delay. Many hundreds

of our members are called upon to perform this type of duty during

the year and we have always felt that they were being penalized

when called upon to qualify for 30 days prior to the time that they

might receive the higher level salary.

We have nothing but commendation for the action of the Post

Office Department in paying these employees after the expiration of
24 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

the first 30 days, rather than forcing them to qualify each calendar

year.

H.R. 10265, under its present provisions, permits the Postmaster General, if he feels it advisable, to have an employee's salary computed

at the higher rate of pay without the necessity of qualifying each calendar year.

We have nothing but the highest regard for the integrity of the

present Postmaster General. However

'

the authority that would be granted to him under this bill would in the course of events be trans- mitted to other postal officials. We have found that in altogether

too many instances some postal officials do not use authority granted

to them in what might be considered a just and kindly manner.

We would, therefore, suggest that an amendment be made to the bill to provide that an employee assuming higher level duties and responsibilities as a supervisor or otherwise be paid immediately for

those higher level duties and responsibilities on the basis of the salary

of the position he is occupying temporarily. We feel this would accomplish the same purpose. We feel that an employee who is called upon to perform these duties and responsibilities is a wellqualified employee, otherwise the officials in charge of that particular

post office would not select said employee.

Supervisors when appointed to their positions immediately receive

the salary of that position, although they may serve a probationary

period. We feel that the same would be true under section 204(b) of Public Law 68 which H.R. 10265 is designed to amend.

Another problem which our membership has continuously drawn

to our attention is that of clerks in small offices replacing postmasters.

In so doing they are paid at an hourly rate which is less than their

usual hourly rate of pay due to the fact that a postmaster is on a

48-hour week and the clerk is on a 40-hour week. We believe that this should be remedied to the effect that a clerk so replacing a postmaster shall not receive less than his hourly rate of pay of his clerical

job.

We appreciate very much the opportunity to present our viewpoint

to the committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. O'Connor, is there any brief statement you

would like to make?

Mr. O'CONNOR. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

In my statement I do draw attention to one or two amendments

we feel might be helpful.

First, we feel that the payment to employees performing higher

level employment should be paid the same as in the case of supervisors,

who are paid immediately at the higher rate of pay.

I also draw attention to the situation in small offices where employees are replacing postmasters and in some cases receiving less

pay due to the number of hours. The postmaster is on a 48-hour

week and the clerk is on a 40-hour week.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. O'Connor, I certainly would like to assure

you that the committee will consider your proposed amendment to

the bill and at the proper time may we assume that if we did not put

that amendment in we would still have your support for the enactment

of the bill?

Mr. O'CoNNoR. We do support the bill enthusiastically. It is an

excellent bill. However, we have some problems we wanted call to

the committee's attention.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 25

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you have any estimate of the amounts that

would have to be repaid by postal employees if we do not enact the

bill?

Mr. O'CONNOR. No. The information we have is isolated. The

Post Office Department is in better position to know the exact

amounts. We do hear of them, however.

Mr. HENDERSON. You do know it would be a hardship for them to

have to repay the amounts?

Mr. O'CONNOR. Yes. Some have written to us and expressed

alarm at the Comptroller General's decision.

Mr. HENDERSON. Any questions?

Mr. JOHANSEN. NO questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Mr. Everett G. Gibson,

legislative director and secretary of the National Federation of Post

Office Motor Vehicle Employees.

STATEMENT OF EVERETT G. GIBSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

AND SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST

OFFICE MOTOR VEHICLE EMPLOYEES

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, m37

name is Everett G. Gibson. I am the legislative director and secretary for the National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress

of Industrial Organizations. Our national office is located at 412

Fifth Street NW., Washington, D.C.

On behalf of our membership, we want to thank you, Mr. Chairman

and the members of this committee, for scheduling hearings on H.R.

10265, providing that our members will be paid the higher salary level

pay after completing 30 days in the higher salary level.

We endorse H.R. 10265 and sincerely hope that your committee will

report H.R. 10265 favorably to the full committee and that this legislation will be enacted during this session of Congress.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you

for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you and give the

approval of this legislation in behalf of our organization.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are there any comments you would like to make,

Mr. Gibson?

Mr. GIBSON. We hope the committee will report it to the full committee and that it will be enacted.

Mr. HENDERSON. Any questions?

Mr. JOTIANSEN. No questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Mr. Daniel Jaspan, legislative

representative of the National Association of Postal Supervisors.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL JASPAN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS

Mr. JASPAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

My name is Daniel Jaspan. I am the legislative representative of

the National Association of Postal Supervisors, composed of 26,000

supervisors in the postal field service. Our association has members
26 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

in each of the 50 States and in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,

including supervisors in the motor vehicle and maintenance service.

We are grateful to Congressman Henderson for introducing this

bill to correct an inequity caused by an adverse ruling of the Comptroller General. The passage of legislation on this subject will be

most helpful to postal employees in many salary levels.

It has been our contention that the original interpretation of section

3335(b) of title 39, or section 204(b) of Public Law 84-68, was not in

accordance with the intent of the Congress. The part of this paragraph which begins "If an employee is assigned for more than 30

days in a calendar year to duties and responsibilities, etc." could

be interpreted in more than one way. We feel that the meaning

intended was, that if an employee completed his 30 days in any

calendar year, rather than in every calendar year, he was to receive

the higher level pay for the time after 30 days necessary to qualify.

It certainly does not make sense

'

if an employee is detailed to higher

level duties—such as from clerk's duties to foreman's duties for 30

days ending December 31—that he should not receive the higher

level pay beginning the 1st day of January.

We also feel that the 30 days mentioned in the law was intended to

be calendar days rather than working days, inasmuch as it takes at

least 6 weeks to qualify for higher level pay under "working days."

We would like to suggest an amendment to this bill to strike out

"may" and substitute shall" on line 5 of page 1 of H.R. 10265, and

to strike out the words "as he deems advisable" on lines 5 and 6.

There are several reasons for this request.

First, if we keep in mind that, upon promotion to a higher lev el,

the employee is paid the higher level salary from the first day, it does

not seem reasonable to waive this method of payment in the case of

employees detailed to higher level positions. Inasmuch as these

employees, too, are performing the higher level duties, and Public

Law 68 of the 84th Congress states in section 201(b), or section 3501(b)

of title 39, that "in ranking positions, the Postmaster General shall

apply the principle of equal pay for substantially equal work" we feel

that the higher level pay should commence from the first day. Since

they are perf3rming the higher level duties, they should receive the

higher level pay.

We realize that this bill grants the Postmaster General authority

to pay at the higher level from the first day, but we are afraid of

administrative difficulties. Since there are 15 regions, it is possible

that the higher level pay will be permitted in some regions and denied

in others. In addition, it is possible that the present Postmaster

General will grant the higher level pay and a future Postmaster

General will decide that the 30-day qualifying period in each calendar

year must be observed. A definite stand by the present Congress

would eliminate the possibility of confusion and inequities.

In more than one instance, we have found that employees were

detailed to higher level duties for almost 30 days and then returned

to their regular positions. These employees could be used indefinitely in higher level positions for periods of less than 30 days in each

calendar year and never qualify for the higher level pay. Payment

at the higher rate from the first day of detail to higher level duties

would prevent this inequity.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 27

Section 2 is extremely important to all employees who have received

the higher level pay without qualifying for 30 days in each calendar

year, since it would relieve them from paying back what the Comptroller General has ruled is, in effect, an overpayment. We hope

that this section will be a part of the bill enacted into law.

Many thanks on behalf of the members of the National Association.

of Postal Supervisors for the privilege of appearing before this subcommittee to state our views. We hope that there will be immediate

action on this vital legislation.

There are a few points I would like to highlight.

Mr. HENDERSON. GO right ahead.

Mr. JASPAN. There is a difference in interpretation of this law,

like many other laws, where it says "if an employee is assigned for

more than 30 days in a calendar year" and so on. We do not think

that means in every calendar year, as it has been interpreted, but

"a" can be one, and that is our idea of it. It does not make any

sense if a man works at the end of a year and continues the next

year that he would have to start all over again.

Mr. JOHANSEN. IS it your idea that this bill would correct that?

Mr. JASPAN. Yes)if properly interpreted.

We are also asking that it be mandatory because we are afraid we

will get 15 regional directors interpreting it 15 different ways unless

it is spelled out. We would like to have it mandatory. Mr. O'Connor

and I do not always agree but we do in this case. When a man is

assuming the duties of a higher level we feel he should be paid from

the first day.

Mr. JOHANSEN. There has been considerable testimony here by

the Department and others that the effect of this bill, if enacted,

would not be to make it mandatory or automatic that there be no

30-day period in any instance. Is that your understanding of the

effect of the bill?

Mr. JASPAN. The bill as it reads, that would be the effect of it.

It would be up to the Postmaster General.

Mr. HENDERSON. You feel the bill should be amended by striking

out "may" and substituting "shall" on line 5 of page 1 of H.R. 10265?

Mr. JASPAN. Yes, and striking out the words 'as he deems advisable" on lines 5 and 6.

Also, we feel Congress meant "30 days" to be calendar days rather

than working days, but the Post Office Department decided that was

30 working days, which is 6 weeks. The people have had to work

6 weeks rather than 30 calendar days.

As far as paying back the money, you can see what difference that

makes. Thirty working days means about 1Y2 months' pay, and that

is a considerable amount of money.

Mr. HENDERSON. As far as paying the money back, the bill would

take care of that?

Mr. JASPAN. Yes, and we are very happy about that.

Mr. HENDERSON. It has been the interpretation in the past of the

Postmaster General that the 30 days in the law meant 30 working

days; is that correct?

Mr. JASPAN. Yes, and that was an interpretation of the Post Office

Department with which we did not agree.

Mr. HENDERSON. Has it been uniformly applied in their interpretation?
28 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. JASPAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. You do not know of any instances where they have

paid some employees for 30 calendar days?

Mr. JASPAN. No, sir. We believe the Congress intended it to be a

calendar month rather than 30 working days. We also have cases

where people have been working 28 or 29 working days in 1 year and

had to start all over again the following year, and this practice has

been going on.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Sometimes I suspect it is difficult for anyone, including Members of Congress, to know exactly what Congress did

intend.

Mr. JASPAN. I agree with you sincerely.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Jaspan, with regard to your statement on

the 15 regions, is it your belief that whatever action we take should

be uniform throughout the postal service? I am sure that is the intent

of the Members of Congress and I believe from the testimony of the

Department witnesses that are on record in this regard it is also the

intent of the Department, and certainly the committee would be glad

to make this clear in our report in regard to uniform application.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I think that is important because otherwise you

are unfair to the employees and the Department itself may get into

some hot water.

Mr. JASPAN. That is what we are afraid might happen because

there is a danger of misinterpretation.

Mr. HENDERSON. Any further comments?

Mr. JASPAN. Not except we would like to thank you for your interest in this because this is a very beneficial bit of legislation and we

hope it will be passed very quickly.

Mr. HENDERSON. I assure you at least in the executive session the

committee will fully discuss your suggestion that we amend the bill

to make it mandatory, but in the event we do not do that, will the

record show you would still support the bill?

Mr. JASPAN. Yes, because this is a humanitarian bill, particularly

section 2, and this would clarify it.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Jaspan.

Mr. JASPAN. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Mr. John MacKay, president of the National Postal Union.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MacKAY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

POSTAL UNION

Mr. MACKAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is John W. MacKay. As president of the National Postal

Union, I am privileged to represent approximately 40,000 postal

workers affiliated in over 400 local unions in 46 States, the island of

Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

We are grateful, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee,

for these speedy hearings on H.R. 10265, a bill to authorize the

Postmaster General in his discretion to pay increased basic salary to

postal field service employees for services performed before the expiration of 30 days following their assignments to duties and responsibilities of higher salary levels, and for other purposes. We particularly

appreciate your understanding of this situation, Mr. Chairman, and
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 29

your immediate intercession to prevent recovery of funds from postal

employees who could ill afford it.

The Postmaster General in applying the stated basic principle of

Public Law 68, 84th Congress, to wit: "equal pay for equal work,"

promulgated regulations permitting payment for higher level service

to employees who had already qualified by the completion of 30 days.

in such service during a prior calendar year. Unfortunately, the

Comptroller General of the United States disagreed with this interpretation and application. On February 1, 1962, the Postmaster

General was advised that part 756.542a(4)(b), which provided for

such payment was invalid, and he was instructed to take immediate

steps to revise the section in accordance with the decision of the

Comptroller General.

At your request, Mr. Chairman, the Comptroller General has agreed.

to withhold any action seeking recovery of funds paid under part

756.543a(4)(b) prior to his decision of February 1, 1962, until the

close of the current session of Congress. However, the Comptroller

General further stated that he does not have the authority to authorize the continuation of payments under part 756.542a(4)(b).

H.R. 10265 proposes to confer upon the Postmaster General discretion to pay increased basic salary to postal field service employees

under the conditions hereinabove described in part 756.542a(4)(b)

and to validate such payments already made. We are in complete

accord with this measure and urge its enactment into law during the

87th Congress.

However, we would like to call to the attention of this subcommittee

the fact that higher basic salary payment for services performed in

higher levels has not been paid to employees engaged therein since

the Comptroller General's directive. We would suggest consideration

by this subcommittee on a provision in H.R. 10265 to compensate

postal field service employees who have rendered such services since

February 1, 1962.

May we again express our sincere appreciation for your understanding of and speedy action in seeking the enactment of this emergency legislation. Thank you.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I would like to ask if the representatives of the

Department have any comment to make on this last suggestion of

the witness?

Mr. BLOCK. As a result of the Comptroller General's decision no

payments were made after the date of that decision, and if the amendment proposed by Mr. MacKay were to be enacted we would have to

undertake the job of determining just what employees were entitled

to the higher level pay.

On the question of the fairness or propriety of it, I could not

comment on that.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Could you comment on whether the process of

acquiring that information would be feasible?

Mr. BLOCK. It would not be difficult.

Mr. HENDERSON. It might be well at this point to insert in the

record the Department's order with regard to suspension of payments

of February 17, 1962. Without objection, it will be placed in the.

record at this point.
30 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

(The order follows:)

HIGH LEVEL COMPENSATION

Pending further notice, payment of additional compensation for performance

of higher level service will be suspended, except in cases where employees have

completed 30 days of higher level service during calendar year 1962. This instruction is applicable to all higher level service performed on and after February

17, 1962.

Time served in higher level positions, with or without higher level compensation,

on or after January 1, 1962, shall be creditable toward satisfaction of the 30-day

requirement in calendar year 1962. Such service shall be appropriately recorded

on form 1322 for each employee affected by this ruling. Postal Manual instructions to the contrary are suspended.—Bureau of Personnel, March 8, 1962.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I am sure that there is no implication of criticism

of the Department for having suspended payments after the decision

of the Comptroller General.

Mr. WENCHEL. If I may say so, we had no alternative.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Absolutely none.

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly there could be no criticism of the Department having suspended payments after the Comptroller General's decision.

Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay. The subcommittee will certainly consider your recommendations.

Mr. MACKAY. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Mr. Ross A. Messer, legislative representative of the National Association of Post Office and

General Services Maintenance Employees.

STATEMENT OF ROSS A. MESSER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND GENERAL

SERVICES MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

I would like to place our organization on record as endorsing the

provisions of H.R. 10265. It is badly needed to correct the ruling of

the Comptroller General over the interpretation of section 204(b) of

Public Law 68.

We would also like to endorse the proposed amendment to make it

retroactive to the date that the payments were stopped. Many of

those men have continued performing the same duties they were

performing the day their pay was reduced back to their original salary

status.

Mr. JOHANSEN. The witness, I believe, wants the law corrected

rather than the ruling?

Mr. MESSER. That is right, so that it will take care of the adverse

ruling. We would also like it retroactive to the date it was discontinued.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Messer. Did you

have a prepared statement?

Mr. MESSER. No, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. MESSER. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness was to be Mr. Ashby Smith,

president of the National Alliance of Postal Employees.

1
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 31

Mr. Smith could not be with us but at this point in the record his

statement will be inserted.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ASHBY G. SMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF POSTAL

EMPLOYEES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the privilege

of bringing to you and the honored members of this committee the views of the

National Alliance of Postal Employees on the legislative proposals before you.

My name is Ashby G. Smith. I am the president of the National Alliance of

Postal Employees. We maintain offices at 1644 11th Street, NW.

Enrolled in our membership are more than 25,000 postal employees, situated

in 113 branches in 46 States.

Mr. Chairman, members of this august committee, I wish to communicate to

you the endorsement of H.R. 10265 as introduced by the Honorable David

Henderson.

The purpose of this legislative proposal is to provide for the payment of basic

salary of higher level positions computed in accordance with section 3559(b) of

title 39, United States Code, at the discretion of the Postmaster General to postal

field service employees assigned to such higher level responsibility.

It is our view that the proposed legislation is directed to an efficient and productive postal service. The proposal is in keeping with sound operating procedures and proven personnel practices. No single factor could be more

disruptive, more demoralizing, and more frustrating to postal management and

postal employees than to embrace the detail to a higher level in a vacuum or to

deny the validity of its worth by blurring the subject of higher level pay.

Section (2) of H.R. 10256, in effect, provides for retroactive protection for

higher level pay received prior to the enactment of the instant proposal. This,

too, we endorse. Otherwise, the present ruling by the Comptroller General will

apply to such payments. Certainly, such action, legality notwithstanding, would

reduce postal operations to shambles. We can well foresee the response of an

unwilling employee assigned to increased responsibility but denied the increased

remuneration.

It is well to note the original basis for the granting of higher level pay. Postal

management, confronted with the unwillingness of employees to assume additional

responsibility, the unwillingness to take the risk of abuse or ridicule, the unwillingness to stand among men as equals paywise and simultaneously exercise managerial

authority in name only, felt moved to remedy a serious difficulty. These were the

factors which motivated the approval to pay higher level salaries for higher level

responsibilities.

As the image of the so assigned employee was enhanced, so the image of management obligation was enhanced. As the recognition to the assigned employee was

heightened, so the desirability for such assignments heightened.

This, then, resulted in a reversal of the managerial experience. Under the

prior system, the responsibility evolved not upon the, best qualified, but upon

those either arbitrarily assigned or those lacking the seniority or aptitude.

In supporting H.R. 10265, we recommend one change which treats with the

discretionary power of the Postmaster General. While we are tremendously

pleased with the present administration in the Post Office Department, we are

mindful of the permanency of statutory authority. Therefore, we recommend

that in line (5), page 1, the word "may" be changed to "shall" and that the

clause "as he deems advisable" be stricken.

Assuming that the postal laws and regulations are sufficient to govern the

utilization of the proposed authority, we feel it unnecessary to further circumscribe, or to render more dubious, the compensation for such assignment through

further reiteration of powers presently inherent in administrative authority.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Mr. James K. Langan, operations director, Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO.

STATEMENT OF JAMES K. LANGAN, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL—CIO

Mr. LANGAN. My name is James K. Langan, operations director,

Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO, representing 23 affiliated

unions of the AFL—CIO, with 650,000 members.
32 HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

We wish to acknowledge our thanks to the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Henderson, for introducing H.R. 10265. This bill

would validate and reinstate a former practice in the Post Office

Department which had to be suspended through a Comptroller General's ruling of February 1, 1962, identified as B-138999, in the Federal service.

Before this ruling of the Comptroller General the Post Office Department, acting under the presumed authority of Public Law 68,

84th Congress, section 204(b), would compensate an employee at a

higher rate of pay when assigned temporarily to a higher classification,

if the employee had first served 30 days in 1 calendar year in the higher

paid position as a prerequisite. It is quite evident that the intent of

Congress was to pay these employees at the prescribed rate for the

duties performed after the qualifying period, or 30 days.

This bill under consideration would clarify the congressional intent

and provide that the Government could pay properly for higher level

services and not be required to assign employees at less remuneration

than is called for in the position classification. This bill has the endorsement of the Government Employes' Council, AFL-CIO.

Again I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, Representative Henderson, and the members of the subcommittee for early consideration

of this bill, and I trust that it will receive a favorable recommendation

for its enactment.

I think this area has been pretty well developed. All the questions

I could think of have come out and as far as I am concerned I am

perfectly satisfied with them as throwing the proper light on the

subject.

We of the Government Employes' Council are interested in this bill

and would like to see it passed. I learned many years ago you do

not quarrel with success, so thank you very much.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Langan.

The next witness is Mr. George Warfel, president, National Association of Special Delivery Messengers.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE WARFEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCL.TION OF SPECIAL DELIVERY MESSENGERS

Mr. WARFEL. I have no prepared statement. I do want, on behalf

of our association, to endorse this bill and we want to thank you for

your interest in trying to correct the matter, and we are very appreciative of the Department's going along with this correction, which is

in line with their previous administration.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Warfel.

The next witness is Mr. Harold McAvoy, national president of the

Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers, and Group

Leaders.
HIGHER LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 33

STATEMENT OF HAROLD McAVOY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, POST

OFFICE MAIL HANDLERS, WATCHMEN, MESSENGERS, AND

GROUP LEADERS

Mr. McAvoY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Harold McAvoy. I am national president of the Post

Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers, and Group Leaders.

We are part of the AFL—CIO and Government Employes' Council.

At the start I would like to go on record in favor of H.R. 10265, the

bill which you and your committee are holding public hearings on,

H.R. 10265, which will amend section 204(A) of Public Law 68, and

provide that any postal employee assigned to a higher pay level may

be paid the higher pay level prior to the expiration of 30 days following his assignment. I am informed that the administration is favoring this worthy piece of legislation, which in my opinion is the way

it should be.

In closing my brief, I wish to say thank you for the privilege of

appearing before you and sincerely urge you and your committee to

give favorable and speedy consideration to H.R. 10265, so that same

will be enacted into law in this session of Congress.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will go into executive session

at this time. We 'would like to ask Dr. Block and Mr. Wenchel to

remain and assist us.

(Thereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee went into executive

session.)

0


4,1,