y4

84/10

f2-9)4HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

963

••

\A

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

or2 COMMITTEE ON

JFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

E SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

rl EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1159 and H.R. 2478

BILLS TO AMEND THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949 TO

AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HAZARDOUS

DUTY PAY IN CERTAIN CASES

fA,2

MARCH 20, 1963

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1963

(
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, West Virginia

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

EVERETT G. BURKHALTER, California

DON EDWARDS, California

JOE R. POOL, Texas

ALBERT W. WATSON, South Carolina

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

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT P. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

HOMER E. ABELE, Ohio

SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED To CONSIDER H.R. 1159 AND H.R. 2478

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana, Chairman

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska
CONTENTS

Statement of— Page

Griner, John F. national president, accompanied by W. J. Voss,

research director, and George Meagher, legislative director, American Federation of Government Employees 8

Jaspan, Daniel, legislative representative, National Association of

Postal Supervisors 17

Macy, Hon. John W., Jr. Chairman, Civil Service Commission 2

Mathias, Hon. Charles 14cC., Jr., a Representative in Congress from

the State of Maryland 13

McCart, John, operations director, Government Employees' Council_ 15

Owen, Vaux, president, National Federation of Federal Employees_ _ _ _ 14

Wallhauser, Hon. George M., a Representative in Congress from the

State of New Jersey 10

HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1963

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SITBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 215,

House Office Building, Hon. Arnold Olsen of Montana (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Mr. OLSEN. The subcommittee will come to order.

This subcommittee, consisting of Mr. Daniels, Mr. Cunningham,

and myself as chairman, was appointed to consider H.R. 1159, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Wallhauser, which would amend the

Classification Act of 1949 to authorize the establishment of hazardous

duty pay in certain cases.

A similar bill, H.R. 2478, has also been introduced by our colleague,

Mr. Daniels.

(The bills H.R. 1159 and H.R. 2478 follow:)

[H.R. 1159, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Classification Act of 1949 to authorize the establishment of

hazardous duty pay in certain cases

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

of America in Congress assembled, That title VIII of the Classification Act of

1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1131-1133), is amended by adding at the end thereof

the following:

"SEC. 804. The Commission shall establish a schedule or schedules of pay

differentials for irregular or intermittent duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard. The appropriate differential shall be paid to any officer or employee to whom this Act applies for any period in which such officer or employee

is subjected to physical hardship or hazard not usually involved in carrying out

the duties of his position. Such pay differential—

"(1) shall not be applicable with respect to any officer or employee in

any position the classification of which takes into account the degree of

physical hardship or hazard involved in the performance of the duties

thereof;

"(2) shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 per centum of the rate of

basic compensation applicable with respect to such officer or employee; and

"(3) shall be paid under regulations which shall be prescribed by the

Commission."

SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this Act shall become

effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins more than ninety

days after the date of enactment of this Act.

[H.R. 2478, 88th Cong., 1st sees.]

A BILL To amend the Classification Act of 1949 to authorize the establishment of

hazardous duty pay in certain cases

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

States of America in Congress assembled, That title VIII of the Classification

1
2 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1131-1133), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"SEC. 804. The Commission shall establish a schedule or schedules of pay dif- ferentials for irregular or intermittent duty involving physical hardship or

hazard under which the appropriate differential shall be paid to any officer or employee to whom this Act applies for any period in which such officer or em- ployee is subjected to physical hardship or hazard not regularly involved in, or required for, the performance of the duties of his position. Such pay differ- ential—

" (1) shall not be applicable with respect to any officer or employee in

any position the classification of which takes into account the degree of physical hardship or hazard involved in the performance of the duties thereof;

"(2) shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 per centum of the rate of basic compensation applicable with respect to such officer or employee;

and

"(3) shall be paid under regulations which shall be prescribed by the Commission."

SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this Act shall become effec- tive on the first day of the first pay period which begins more than one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. OLSEN. I might point out that Mr. Wallhauser's bill, H.R. 1159, is identical to his bill of the last Congress, H.R. 2079 as it was intro- duced.

Mr. Daniels' bill is identical to H.R. 2079 of the last Congress as it was amended by the committee and as it passed the House on the

Consent Calendar on September 4,1962.

The official reports that have been received from the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the Budget support the enactment of

H.R. 1159 and oppose H.R. 2478.

The legislation authorizes the Civil Service Commission to estab- lish pay differentials for employees covered by the Classification Act for work which they are required to perform under physical hardship

or hazards that are not usually involved in the performance of the duties of the position.

The legislation specifically limits the application of hazardous duty

pay so that the pay differentials shall not apply when the physical hardship or hazard was taken into account in classifying the em- ployee's position. It also limits such pay so that it may not exceed

25 percent of the employee's basic compensation and it is payable only

for such periods of work that are actually performed under hazardous

or hardship conditions.

Our first witness this morning was to be our colleague Mr. Wallhauser. He is not here yet, so we will just proceed, and we will call

on the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, John Macy.

I might suggest that we can, without objection, have your statement as you have it written inserted in the record and proceed with

haste.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. MACY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your permission, I will insert my statement in the record and indicate that the Civil Service Commission endorses the enactment

of H.R. 1159, the bill that was before your subcommittee last year

on August 1 and which would provide for payment of salary differ-
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

ential in conditions relating to unusual physical hardship or hazards

not usually involved in work assigned to Federal employees under

the Classification Act.

It is the view of the Commission that this legislation would serve

really three basic purposes.

First, it would serve as an incentive to employees to accept such

irregular or intermittent assignments of an unusually hazardous

nature, such as flying missions with hurricane weather flights, experimental work in newly designed submarines or aircraft, and working

at very high elevations where complete safety conditions are not

possible.

Second, it would serve as a means for reducing the inequities in

pay treatment that exist at the present time between those employees

paid under the wage board systems, particularly in the Department

of Defense, and those paid under the Classification Act.

At the present time it is possible for those under the wage board

systems to receive premium differentials of this type where this

kind of special but intermittent hazardous work is involved.

Third, this measure would serve as a means of recognizing and

expressing appreciation to employees for their willingness to perform

these unusual physical hardships as a special part of their job.

The only suggested amendment that the Commission would like to

offer is one that has administrative implications, namely, that section 2 of the bill be amended to permit a 180—day leadtime for the

actual application of these standards rather than the 90 days that is

presently in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the Commission's report on this bill is similar to the

one I presented at the hearing last year. I sustain the endorsement

that we gave to the legislation at that time.

We feel that this bill is preferable to the one introduced by CODr

man Daniels—that is, H.R. 2478—because this bill clearly specieessishat this pay should be for unusual conditions and not for hazardous conditions generally.

The limit on the premium pay that would be involved here is

25 percent. We feel that that represents a reasonable differential

under the bill.

Under the bill the Commission would issue regulations that would

guide the actual administration of these provisions by the agencies.

Mr. OLSEN. Let me interrupt you right there just for a moment.

Mr. Macy, referring then specifically to H.R. 1159, do you have

a copy of the bill before you there?

Mr. MACY. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. On the top of page 2 of H.R. 1159 it says, "* * * hazard

not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position." That

language I understand then the Commission supports?

Mr. MACY. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. But you do not support the language then in H.R. 2478

at the bottom of page 1 starting with the word' "hazard" and continuing to the top of page 2 "not regularly involved in, or required

for"?

Mr. MACY. More specifically, if you would note, in line 8 in H.R.

2478 the language reads "duty involving physical hardship or hazard."

In H.R. 1159 the word "unusual" is used to modify "physical hardship or hazard."
4 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

The omission of this particular word we feel is significant because if it were eliminated it would broaden the area of hazard rather substantially and would make considerably more difficult the admin- istrative determination as to what instances this particular differen- tial should be applied.

So our preference is strongly for the language in line 8 in H.R. 1159.

Mr. OLSEN. Then in H.R. 1159 you recommend a change in section 2?

Mr. MACY. Only in section 2, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. And there you want stricken from line 15 the word "ninety" and inserted in lieu thereof "one hundred eighty"?

Mr. MACY. Correct, sir. That would be the only amendment that

we suggest.

Mr. OLSEN. Then with that the Commission would support H.R. 1159?

Mr. MACY. Yes, sir. We would urge its enactment.

Mr. OLSEN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. NO; I have no questions.

Mr. OLSEN. I have no more questions.

Mr. MACY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Macy.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Macy.

Mr. OLSEN. We certainly appreciate your coming here.

• I wonder if at this point you would like to have inserted in the record, together with your complete statement, your letters of March 18?

Mr. 1VIAcy. Yes. This I believe will further supplement my state- ment.

Mr. OLSEN. Then, without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MACY. Thank you.

(The complete statement of Mr. Macy, together with letters of March 18, 1963, above referred to, follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to speak in favor of enactment of H.R. 1159 introduced by Congressman Wallhauser. This bill would authorize the payment of salary diff- erentials, not to exceed 25 percent of basic compensation, to Classification Act employees performing irregular or intermittent duties involving unusual physi- cal hardship or hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of their positions, and not taken into account in the classification of the positions. To assist in your consideration of this bill I should like to point out that the proposed differentials serve three principal purposes: (1) as incentives to em- ployees to accept such irregular or intermittent assignments, (2) as a means of reducing inequities in pay treatment among the various groups of Federal em- ployees, and (3) as a measure of recognition and appreciation for the employees' willingness to perform the regular duties of their positions under conditions of unusual physical hardship or hazard. We do not view the differentials either as

a device to aid the Government in recruiting or retaining employees or as a

means of providing pay increases for the employees involved:

The question of whether or not Classification Act employees should be paid additional or premium compensation for performing duties involving unusual physical hardships and hazards has been a subject of discussion for a long time. Such differentials are paid to some categories of military personnel and
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 5

to Public Health Service personnel. They are paid to wage board employees

of certain agencies. Hazard payments for these employees usually are authorized under conditions similar to those proscribed in the proposed bill, although

the amounts of the differentials often exceed the 25 percent prescribed in

H.R. 1159. For example, one agency authorizes a differential of 50 percent for

flying in connection with testing aircraft. Another agency authorizes hazard differentials at twice the basic hourly rate for work performed at a height of 100

feet and above, under hazardous conditions caused by the absence of scaffolding

guards or other suitable protective measures or facilities. Such premium payments are currently authorized for a number of other hazardous situations.

Extra compensation may be provided Classification Act employees through

the regular position classification process when the unusual physical hardship

or hazard is inherent in the position, regularly recurs, and is performed for a

substantial part of the working time. However, there does not now exist a

means for providing compensation for this purpose where the unusual hardship or hazard occurs at such irregular or intermittent intervals that it does not

constitute a regular part of the job for position classification purposes. Yet,

it is fair and logical that the Government offer some additional remuneration

to the employee asked, in the course of performing assigned duties, to take

unusual risks not normally associated with his regular job, for which premium

compensation is not otherwise provided.

The proposed legislation would fill this void. At the same time it would avoid

many problems normally associated with hazard pay proposals by restricting

coverage to unusually severe working conditions, and by limiting payments to

periods of actual exposure. Since the premium would be paid only on an irregular basis, it would not lose its identity as a separate payment, thereby

avoiding problems often associated with moving employees from premium

compensation positions to regular rate positions.

We note that the bill does not specify whether or not they pay differentials to

be authorized should be treated as base pay for retirement and insurance

purposes. It is believed that since hazard pay, in cases of individual employees,

would be relatively small and would fluctuate from time to time, it would not

be considered as base pay for purposes of entitling affected employees to additional retirement or insurance coverage.

During the hearings last year on an identical bill, H.R. 2079, also introduced

by Congressman Wallhauser, a question was raised concerning the Commission's

authority, under the bill, to provide by regulation for minimum time periods

for payment of the differential when such period might exceed the actual time

of exposure to the unusual hardship or hazard. We suggest that if the subcommittee desires that a minimum time period be provided, then the language

of the bill should be clarified to assure such effect.

We are well aware of potential problems in administering the premium

differential program provided by this bill. It will not always be easy to differentiate between hazardous and unusually hazardous work situations. Nevertheless, we want to emphasize that these determinations can be made, and that

the differentials should be authorized only for exposure to unusually severe

conditions.

A similar bill, H.R. 2478, introduced by Congressman Daniels, omits the

requirement that the hardships and hazards to which there is exposure be of

an "unusual" nature. The effect of this difference is to provide greatly expanded

coverage of the hazardous duty principle. Not only would the broader coverage

make it more difficult to differentiate between eligible and ineligible situations,

it also would increase substantially the potential cost of the program. Furthermore, much of the value of the differential as an unusual form of recognition

and appreciation would be lost if it were authorized under less stringent requirements. For these reasons we favor enactment of H.R. 1159 as presently worded

in this respect.

We do not think it feasible to establish such a program and have it operating

satisfactorily within a period of 90 days after enactment as required by the

bill. Six months would provide more adequate leadtirne. Accordingly, we

recommend that consideration be given to amending the bill to provide that it

become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins more than

180 days after the date of its enactment.

Thank you for affording me the privilege of appearing before you this morning.

96502-63 2
6 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., March 18, 1963.

HON. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This is in further response to the committee's request

of January 23, 1963, for the Civil Service Commission's views with respect to

H.R. 1159, a bill to amend the Classification Act of 1949 to authorize the establishment of hazardous duty pay in certain cases.

This bill would authorize the payment, subject to regulations to be prescribed

by the Commission, of pay differentials not to exceed 25 percent of basic compensation, to Classification Act employees performing irregular or intermittent

duties involving unusual physical hardship or hazard. The differential would

be paid only during the period of the employee is subjected to physical hardship

or hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position. It

would not apply where the classification of the employee's position takes into account the degree of physical hardship or hazard involved.

The Commission favors enactment of H.R. 1159.

The question of whether or not Classification Act employees should be paid additional or premium compensation for performing duties involving unusual physical hardships and hazards has been a subject of discussion for a long time. Such

differentials are paid to some categories of military personnel and Public Health

Service personnel, among others. Hazard pay also • is authorized under wage

board pay systems of some agencies. The conditions under which separate

hazard pay is authorized for wage board employees in the Army and Air Force

are very similar to those prescribed in the proposed bill. That is, such premiums

are paid for irregular or intermittent performance of duties under unusually

arduous or hazardous circumstances which have not been considered in the

evaluation of the job. The Department of the Navy authorizes a differential of

50 percent for flying in connection with testing aircraft, or apparatus or appliances on aircraft. The Army-Air Force wage board has authorized hazard

differentials at twice the basic hourly rate for work performed at a height of

100 feet and above, under hazardous conditions caused by the absence of scaffolding guards or other suitable protective measures or facilities. Both the Department of the Navy and the Army-Air Force wage board authorize premium

payments for a number of other hazardous situations. The Army-Air Force

wage board policy requires that hazard payments be made in increments

of 15 minutes, with a 1-hour minimum payment for any day in which the hazardous work is performed.

We believe that unusual physical hardships or hazards which are inherent in

a position, which regularly recur, and which are performed for a substantial

part of the working time are best compensated for through the regular position

classification process. However, there does not now exist a means for providing

such compensation where regularly assigned duties are performed under unusually hazardous conditions at such irregular or intermittent intervals that

these conditions cannot be taken into consideration for position classification

purposes. Yet, it seems logical that the Government offer some additional remuneration to the employee asked to take unusual risks not normally associated

with his occupation and for which added compensation is not otherwise provided.

The proposed legislation would fill this void. At the same time it would avoid

many of the problems normally associated with hazard pay proposals by restricting coverage to the most deserving cases, and by limiting payments to periods of

actual exposure not taken into consideration in the classification of the position.

This would preclude the possibility of double payment through both job classification and separate premium pay which otherwise might occur. Since the

premium would be paid only on an irregular basis, it would not lose its identity as

a separate payment, thus forestalling problems often associated with moving

employees from premium compensation positions to regular rate positions.

We would visualize assignments such as those requiring irregular or intermittent participation in hurricane weather flights, participation in test flights of

aircraft during their developmental period or after modification, participation

in trial runs of newly built submarines or in submerged voyages of an exploratory nature such as those under the Polar ice fields, and performance of work at

extreme heights under adverse conditions, as among those meeting the criteria

of unusual physical hardship or hazard. We recognize that in most regularly

recurring hazardous work situations safety training and precautions have been
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 7

developed which so greatly reduce the possibility of accident that the degree of

hazard becomes negligible. The examples cited above, however, go beyond such

conditions. They take into consideration, for example, such matters as the need

to deliberately operate equipment such as newly developed or modified aircraft

beyond its known design capabilities or safe operating limits, and exposure

to elements or conditions over which little or no control can be exercised. Normally few accidents occur in these hazardous situations; nevertheless, such

assignments always are accompanied by the undeniable awareness of the

inherent danger of the activity and the knowledge that an accident, should it

occur, would almost certainly be fatal.

The total cost of premium payments under this bill probably would be relatively low. Nevertheless, in individual situations they would serve as inducements to attract personnel for special tasks involving unusual hardships or

hazards. The differential would not eliminate all pay inequities among Classification Act and wage board employees working under similar conditions of hardship or hazard; however, it would largely reduce the amount of the difference

which normally favors the wage board employee. The monetary payment represented by the premium would, of course, be of immediate benefit to the employee. The Government can expect to benefit, too, however, as a result of

improved employee morale, which undoubtedly would attend this formal recognition of the performance of unusually hazardous work.

We do not think it feasible to establish such a program and have it operating

satisfactorily within a period of 90 days after enactment as required by tne

bill. Accordingly, we recommend that consideration be given to amending section 2 of the bill to read as, follows:

"Sec. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this act shall become

effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins more than 180

days after the date of enactment of this act."

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr.

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., March 18, 1963.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This is in further response to the committee's request

of January 29, 1963, for the Civil Service Commission's views with respect to

H.R. 2478, a bill to amend the Classification Act of 1949 to authorize the establishment of hazardous duty pay in certain cases.

This bill would authorize the payment, subject to regulations to be prescribed

by the Commission, of pay differentials not to exceed 25 percent of basic compensation, to Classification Act employees performing irregular or intermittent

duties involving physical hardship or hazard. The differential would be paid

for any period in which the employee is subjected to physical hardship or

hazard not regularly involved in or required for the performance of the duties

of his position. It would not apply where the classification of the employee's

position takes into account the degree of physical hardship or hazard involved.

The Commission does not favor enactment of H.R. 2478.

In a separate report on a similar bill, H.R. 1159 (and in an earlier report on

H.R. 2079, 87th Congress, which is identical to H.R. 1159), we subscribed to

the principle of hazardous duty pay in certain cases. However, in keeping with

the language contained in H.R. 1159, we believe that premium payments for this

purpose should be restricted to only the most deserving situations, that is, those

involving exposure to "unusual" physical hardships and hazards.

It is in this respect that we view H.R. 2478 unfavorably. Payments would

not be limited to "unusual" situations. Rather, the bill would permit the

differential to be authorized for irregular or intermittent exposure to any

physical hardship or hazard, subject only to the stipulation that the hazard

be neither regularly involved in, or required for, the performance of the duties

of the position, nor taken into consideration in its classification.

The number of potential hardships and hazards to be considered under this

very broad coverage would be vastly greater than were the differentials to be
8 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

authorized only for such exposure to unusual hardships and hazards. In addition to being more difficult to administer, such a hazard pay program would

involve costs many times greater than would be required under H.R. 1159. Also

to be considered is the fact that if the coverage of the differential is broadened

to the extent provided by H.R. 2478, it would undoubtedly lose much of its value

as an exceptional form of recognition and reward for the performance of duties

under special circumstances.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. I will call on our next witness, Mr. John Griner, president, American Federation of Government Employees.

And, if you will, please introduce your colleagues.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT; ACCOMPANIED BY W. I. VOSS, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, AND GEORGE

MEAGHER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES

Mr. GRINER. Chairman Olsen, my name is John F. Griner. I am

national president of the American Federation of Government Employees.

To my right is Mr. W. J. Voss, who is our director of research.

To my left we have Mr. George Meagher, who is now in charge of

our legislative activities.

I have a statement this morning, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering

would you like me to read the statement, or would you like me to file

the statement and just discuss the contents in general?

Mr. OLSEN. Well, in the interest of time, because we are very

favorably inclined toward this legislation, we would rather you would

submit your statement and then tell us what you will about it. But

we leave it up to you.

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to submit the statement.

Mr. OLSEN. Without objection, then, it is ordered that your statement be entered in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Griner follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERN M ENT EMPLOYEES

The bill H.R. 1159, sponsored by Representative Wallhauser, to provide a pay

differential for unusual physical hardship or hazard, is approved by the American

Federation of Government Employees. It is approved because it will repair a

weakness in existing classification law.

As presently applied, the classification law permits the Civil Service Commission in appraising the content and requirements of a position to take cognizance

of hazard as an element of that position. For hazard to be so considered, however, it must be inherent in the duties and responsibilities of the position. This

recognition of hazard as a constant factor does not extend to "irregular or intermittent duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard." This bill would

extend the coverage of the law to these infrequent instances of hardship or

hazard.

To this extent, the bill proposed by Representative Wallhauser would equalize

the treatment of all classified employees who from time to time may be called

upon to risk their lives in the performance of their duties. It is not intended

to introduce a new concept into the classification law, but merely to complete

the application of an objective already there.
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 9

There are many instances of the requirement of classified employees facing

unusual hazard periodically in the performance of their duties, such as the electronic technician or engineer who is required to ride in an airplane of one of the

military agencies when newly designed equipment is tested. Another example is

the engineer in the classified service who is required to be aboard a submarine

when new equipment is undergoing testing under actual operation at sea. A wage

board employee included in such a civilian testing group may be compensated for

the extra hazard. A classified employee may not. The number of employees

affected would not be great and therefore would not entail any large expenditure.

Then too, the differential would be paid only during the period in which the

individual is subjected to physical hardship or hazard. When a similar bill was

favorably reported to the House last year, it was indicated that the cost would be

less than $100,000 a year. There is no apparent reason for modifying that

estimate.

Since recurrent hardship or hazard may be regarded as being included in the

"substantial differences in the difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements of the work performed," it is patently discriminatory to ignore completely

the justice of taking into account those irregular or intermittent situations which

Infrequently expose the employee to danger. Extreme hazard cannot be logically

measured in terms of frequency of occurrence. It may be trite but still it is a

truism that it requires but one mishap to cause loss of life or to condemn the

individual to permanent crippling.

Other pay systems permit the compensation of periodic hazards. It has been

a feature of the Army-Air Force wage board system. That system permits the

provision of additional compensation for hazardous duty performed by the wage

board employees in a manner similar to that provided in the Wallhauser bill.

The Army-Air Force wage board in a recent report stipulated that "inherent

risks will continue to be recognized as an element in the evaluation of wage

board jobs."

The report stated further that "certain predefined, unusually hazardous conditions will be treated for pay purposes by authorization of premium pay." The

board stipulated that this extra pay would be limited to certain situations which

require working with certain substances or agents "under conditions which by

common acceptance clearly demonstrate a potential danger of temporary or

permanent disability or disease or death."

Similarly, H.R. 1159 provides that the Civil Service Commission shall establish

a schedule of pay differentials for "irregular or intermittent duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard." The bill further provides that the appropriate differential shall be paid to any officer or employee covered by the amendment "for any period in which such officer or employee is subjected to physical

hardship or hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position."

The possibility of double payment for a hazardous element of a position is obviated by the provision that the pay differential shall not be applicable when the

classification of a position takes into account the degree of physical hardship

involved. Thus the differential will not be paid for a regularly recurring hazard

by increasing the rate already paid because such an element has already been

recognized as a basis for allocation of the position to a higher grade.

Implementation of this proposed legislation will require careful phrasing of

regulations governing its application. It will not be a simple matter to define

"unusual physical hardship or hazard," but that is no reason for failing to remove a defect from existing law. The AFGE is of the view that the bill will provide a needed improvement in the classification law.

We appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for stating the viewpoint of the

organization on this bill.

Mr. GRINER. I do have a few comments with respect to my statement.

Mr. OLSEN. We certainly welcome your comments.

Mr. GRINER. I might say in the beginning we are wholeheartedly

in favor of this bill, and we appreciate the activities of Mr. Wallhauser

in introducing and sponsoring this bill.

As we already know from hearing Mr. Macy, this is not a new concept of classification. This just corrects an inadequacy in our present

classification law.
10 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

Under our present classification law—and I believe you will find

that in sections 401 and 501 of the 1949 Classification Act, as

amended—you will note that the Civil Service Commission or the

agencies now have the authority to give additional compensation in

cases where there is a continuous hazardous or hardship condition.

But we are now faced with many cases where this hazardous or

hardship condition is not continuous. It is only for a short period of

time.

And as you and I know, it only requires one mishap to cause a loss

of life or to condemn the individual to be apermanent cripple.

Then, again, this particular piece of legislation will male more

uniform the application of the hazardous or unusual physical hardship as referred to between wage board employees and classified employees. Because under the present wage board law—and I believe

you will find that is contained in section 202(7) of the Classification

Act—they do have authority to pay additional compensation in the

case of intermittent hazardous work.

I would like to point out also that the cost of this particular bill

will be somewhat nominal. Last year I think Mr. Macy stated that

the cost of the bill which was then before you—and I believe at that

time the bill was H.R. 2079—would be approximately $100,000 a year.

The cost should be even less this year, because with the word "unusual"

which is used in line 8 of H.R. 1159 it makes the application of this

law even more conservative than it would be under the former bill.

Frankly, we believe that, Mr. Macy's request for 180 days is not

out of line. We believe that he can do it, and we believe that he will

write up the necessary regulations in order to have this bill into effect

in less than 180 days, but if it takes 180 days we will go along with

that too.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anything particularly that I can

point out with respect to this bill other than what has already been

pointed out by Mr. Macy.

Again I wish to say we do wholeheartedly endorse the bill.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Griner.

Mr. Cunningham, do you have any questions?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No questions.

Mr. OLSEN. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Griner, for your

contribution here this morning. I know you point, out all the distinctions that Mr. Macy points out and that you support this principle that

Mr. Wallhauser brought to us so strongly last year.

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir, we do.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRINER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. OLSEN. The next witness is our colleague, Congressman Wallhauser, of New Jersey. We are glad to have our collague before us

as a witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, before testifying to the merits

of my bill, H.R. 1159, I would like to express my sincere thanks to

the Honorable Tom Murray, chairman of the Post Office and Civil
. HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 11

Service Committee, for naming this subcommittee to hold hearings

on the bill.

I also appreciate the willingness of the chairman and members of

the subcommittee to hold this hearing at this early date in the session.

As most members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee

know, I have had a long and active interest in seeing that the proposals contained in my bill are enacted into law.

In the 86th Congress, I introduced a bill calling for the establishment, by law, of the principle that Classification Act employees should

be paid additional compensation for performing duties involving unusual physical hardships or hazards. Again in the 87th Congress I

introduced a similar bill, and it was approved unanimously by the

committee and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the bill

was not reached in the Senate before the 87th Congress adjourned.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will file the balance of my

statement.

Mr. OLSEN. Without objection, it will appear in the record in its

entirety.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Wallhauser follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, before testifying as to the merits of my bill, H.R. 1159, I would

like to express my sincere thanks to the Honorable Tom Murray, chairman of the

Post Office and Civil Service Committee, for naming this subcommittee to hold

hearings on the bill.

I also appreciate the willingness of the chairman and members of the subcommittee to hold this hearing at this early date in the session.

As most members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee know, I have

had a long and active interest in seeing that the proposals contained in my

bill are enacted into law. In the 86th Congress, I introduced a bill calling for

the establishment, by law, of the principle that Classification-Act employees

should be paid additional compensation for performing duties involving unusual physical hardships or hazards. Again in the 87th Congress I introduced

a similar bill and it was approved unanimously by the committee and the House

of Representatives. Unfortunately, the bill was not reached in the Senate

before the 87th Congress adjourned.

I believe that the action of the committee and the House last year clearly

establishes that this is worthwhile and needed legislation. It is my sincere hope

that this bill will be enacted into law at the earliest possible moment.

Briefly, H.R. 1159 will correct an inequity and close a gap in existing law

which discriminates against employees covered by the Classification Act of

1949, as amended, with respect to hazardous duty pay.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will close the gap by authorizing additional remuneration to employees asked to take unusual risks normally not associated with the

performance of their duties of their position and for which added compensation

is not otherwise provided. Under the bill, the Civil Service Commission will be

directed to establish a schedule of pay differentials for irregular and intermittent duties involving unusual physical hardships or hazards. It will apply only

to employees covered by the Classification Act. It will not apply to any employees where the physical hardship or hazard has been taken into consideration

in establishing the position of the employee.

The maximum pay differential allowable under the legislation is 25 percent

of the rate of basic compensation. The added cost to the Government would be

minimal because it has been estimated that only a few hundred employees might

prospectively be involved.

I am sure that we all agree that when physical hardships and hazards have

been considered in establishing the class of the position and the appropriate

rate of compensation, there is no justification for hazardous pay. The level

of the position, because of such duty would provide the proper rate of compensation. In this connection, it is most significant to point out that physical

hardships or hazards were not taken into consideration in evaluating the posi-
12 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

tions of the employees this bill seeks to help through financial recognition of

the risks they are asked to take in the pursuit of their duties for our Government.

Mr. Chairman, I visualize this bill as covering assignments such as those

requiring irregular or intermittent participation in hurricane weather flights,

participation in test flights of aircraft during their development period or after

modification, participation in trial runs of newly built submarines or in submerged voyages of an exploratory nature such as those under the polar ice fields,

and performance of work at extreme heights under adverse conditions.

I believe it is only fair and logical that risks taken by such employees should

be recognized by our Government. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to

note that the principle of premium compensation for being asked to take unusual

risk in employment has been firmly established both by Government and by

private enterprise.

In Government, it is a fact that separate hazardous pay now is authorized for

wage board employees in the Army and Air Force for work involved in such

situations as described earlier in my testimony. Also, hazardous differentials

are paid in most categories to military personnel and Public Health Service

personnel required to perform services in these situations. Additionally, on

July 12, 1960, an Executive order was issued which gave special hazardous pay to

members of the Armed Forces who were involved in undersea exploration and

research facilities.

In private industry, pay differentials are provided for in collective bargaining

contracts covering employments that fall principally into seven categories. They

are high work; work with or near explosives; work involving exposure to fumes,

dusts and other irritants; work in extreme temperatures; underground and

underwater work; piloting and other flight work, and work requiring exposure

to high voltages.

It is obvious that there is an inequity and gap in present law as relates to our

Classification Act employees. I think we should act quickly and affirmatively to

remove the inequity.

In closing my testimony, I would like to point out that there is a minor point

of difference concerning section 2 of my bill. The bill provides that the legislation will become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins

more than 90 days after enactment. I understand that the Civil 'Service Commission will or has recommended that this section be amended to provide that

the 90 days be changed to 180 days. This, I believe, is a reasonable and appropriate recommendation and I urge the members of the subcommittee to take

favorable action on H.R. 1159, with an amendment as recommended by the Civil

Service Commission.

I would like to express my appreciation to the members and staff of the Civil

Service Commission for their assistance and cooperation. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and members for your attention and courtesy.

Mr. OLSEN. I might say at this time, Mr. Wallhauser, that we

certainly welcome you here this morning to make this statement.

As last year, I am in agreement with you again this year, and I have

strong and high hopes that this legislation will pass this committee

and the whole committee and the House by unanimous consent.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation for

the never-failing courtesy of you and the members of this subcommittee and all members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee

of the House. I appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I want to thank our colleague for testifying

and introducing this legislation. I know that he has done an awful

lot of work on it and does seek to remedy a very unfair and serious

situation facing our employees.

I congratulate him for bringing it to the committee's attention.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 13

Mr, CUNNINGHAM. I should also like to commend our colleague,

Mr. Daniels, for recognizing the existence of this inequity and for

seeking to correct it through the introduction of his bill, H.R. 2478.

In the period of time I have been privileged to serve with him on our

committee I have observed that he is always in the forefront of the endeavor to improve the working conditions of our Federal employees.

His action here is certainly consistent with his continuing concern for

the welfare of our vast Government work force.

Mr. DANIELS. I sincerely appreciate your generous comments, Mr.

Cunningham. I may say that when this matter was before our committee last year I was deeply impressed with the fairness of extending

the application of hazardous duty pay to employees covered by the

Classification Act. I was extremely disappointed that Mr. Wallhauser's bill did not pass the Senate before adjournment. This year,

in an effort to secure early action on the legislation and to emphasize my full support for Mr. Wallhauser's proposal, I introduce his

bill exactly as it passed the House in the 87th Congress. It is certainly my hope and desire here this morning that the subcommittee

will favorably report his bill, H.R. 1159, to the full committee. Mr.

Wallhauser is to be congratulated on his long and determined effort

in behalf of this legislation.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Daniels.

We will now hear from our colleague, Hon. Charles McC, Mathias,

Jr., of Maryland.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, IR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee I

am Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Congressman from Maryland's Sixth

Congressional District. I appreciate very much the opportunity to

appear before this subcommittee in support of H.R. 1159, a bill to

authorize the establishment of hazardous duty pay for certain individuals included within the Classification Act of 1949.

This bill was introduced in an effort to equalize the salary standards of certain white-collar Federal employees while engaged in

extraordinary dangerous work assignments.

The benefits to be derived from favorable action on this proposed

legislation are manifold. Incentive would be provided for more Federal employees engaged in research and data-gathering missions to

accept extra hazardous duty assignments. Many inequities that presently exist in the Federal pay system would be noticeably diminished.

It is indeed incumbent upon the Congress to take cognizance at this

time of the brave and tireless efforts of many Federal employees who

willingly accept the uncertainties and perils incident to especially

hazardous work assignments undertaken in the line of duty. H.R.

1159 will do much to rectify the existing inequities in the hazardous

pay scales. I am happy to recommend passage of this bill.

Mr. OLSEN. Our next witness is Mr. Vaux Owen, president, National Federation of Federal Employees.

Mr. Owen.
14 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

STATEMENT OF VAUX OWEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION

OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. OWEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement here that I would

like to ask be inserted in the record, and I shall not read the statement.

I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, that my organization appreciates

the action of Congressman Wallhauser in coming back agin this year

and introducing this legislation again when it failed to pass the Congress last year.

We urge favorable report on 1159 by this subcommittee.

The distinguished chairman of this subcommittee I believe was

chairman of the committee last year that recommended favorable

action on a similar bill with the word I believe "unusual" stricken.

We do think that it would be advantageous to leave the word "unusual" in this bill.

We support the statement of the Chairman of the Civil Service

Commission regarding amendment to section 2. It will probably take

180 days to get the machinery operating.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly urge favorable report on this legislation.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Owen.

Your full statement will be placed in the record, and we thank you

very much for your participation in bringing this legislation before

this subcommittee.

Mr. OWEN. Thank you, sir.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Owen follows:)

STATEMENT BY VAIJII OWEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL

EMPLOYEES

My name is Vaux Owen. I am president of the National Federation of

Federal Employees. Our national office is located at 1737 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.

We favor the purpose of H.R. 1159. The purpose is to provide hazardous

duty pay for Classification Act employees for irregular or intermittent duty

which subjects them to physical hardship or hazard not involved in carrying

out the usual duties of their regular positions.

The principle of premium pay for hazardous duty is already recognized for

certain categories of wage board employees and they are paid premium pay

because of irregular or intermittent hazardous duty assignments. It is also

recognized in the regular pay of Classification Act employees where unusual

physical hardship or hazard is inherent in the position and when a substantial

part of the employee's time is devoted to hazardous duties. This principle

having been recognized for wage board employees and for those Classification

Act employees who devote most of their time to hazardous, duty assignments,

it would seem fair and just to apply the principle, under such regulations as

the Civil Service Commission may issue, to an employee subject to the Classification Act who is assigned to perform hazardous duties at irregular and infrequent times.

An example of an inequitable situation which this bill would remedy, if

enacted is that of a professional engineer subject to the Classification Act,

who, under the existing law cannot receive any premium pay for irregular or

intermittent duty involving the testing of experimental aircraft, yet at the

same time a wage board mechanic, working alongside such an engineer, can

be so compensated. Another example would be that of an employee subject

to the Classification Act who is required to work at irregular and intermittent

times in a radiation hazardous area.

During the second session of the 87th Congress, an identical bill, H.R. 2079,

was slightly amended and favorably reported by a subcommittee, the chairman
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 15

of which is the distinguished chairman of the present subcommittee. It is

respectfully urged that this subcommittee report favorably on H.R. 1159.

I thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear in favor of this proposed legislation.

Mr. OLSEN. Our next witness is Mr. John McCart, operations director, Government Employes' Council.

Mr. McCart.

STATEMENT OF JOHN McCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL

Mr. MCCART. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the organization I represent is comprised of 24

AFL—CIO unions representing workers of the various agencies of the

Federal Government, postal, white collar and blue collar.

The council endorses this legislation.

I would like to express our thanks to you for your prompt scheduling of these hearings and to the authors of the bills, Congressman

allhauser and Congressman Daniels, for their continued interest.

With your permission, I would like to have my statement inserted

in full in the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. At this point, without objection, it is so ordered.

(The prepared statement of Mr. McCart follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Government Employes' Council, representing 24 unions comprised in whole or in part of employees

of the Federal Government, endorses the bill under consideration today.

First, it would be well to emphasize that the measure has a very specific purpose. It does not constitute a salary adjustment for the Classification Act employees involved. It does not revise the classifications of the jobs of these employees. The bill simply permits payment of a salary differential not to exceed

25 percent for classified workers who are exposed to unusual physical hazards

on an intermittent basis.

Under the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, the Civil Service Commission

and Federal agencies have authority to consider hazards encountered by employees in developing classification standards and allocating the proper grade to

a job. In this case, however, the hazard must be an integral part of the position,

and the employee must experience a relatively continuous exposure. There is no

existing authority for compensating these employees for occasional assignments

to highly dangerous situations as a part of their official functions.

Second, the proposal in H.R. 1159 constitutes a logical application to classified

workers of a system in effect for many years for other Federal personnel.

The pay systems of agencies covering the 800,000 wage board or blue collar

provides an hourly differential when employees are assigned to dangerous

work or are exposed to highly volatile substances. For example, wage board

workers in the military agencies who are required to work at heights exceeding 100 feet, receive the hourly differential so long as that particular

assignment continues. When performing normal duties on the ground, the

differential does not apply.

Upon approval by Congress, H.R. 1159 would apply to technical and professional employees compensated under the Classification Act when they are

required to participate in flights to test aircraft equipment or participate in

"test runs" upon the completion or conversion of naval vessels. Under the

pay program in effect for many years for blue-collar workers, they are entitled

to the hourly differential, while the classified workers on the same mission

are not.

H.R. 1159 requires the Civil Service Commission to promulgate regulations

governing the application of the new authority to classified employees. This

procedure should insure uniformity so that all employees under like circum-
16 HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY

stances will receive equal consideration. In the development of these regulations, we assume the Commission will follow the customary pattern of consultation

with the employee organizations whose members are to be affected.

Mr. Chairman, our council urges early, favorable action on this meritorious

legislation.

On behalf of the member organizations of the council we express appreciation

for the prompt scheduling of this hearing and the opportunity to offer this

statement.

Mr. MCCART. I would like to make just one or two extemporaneous

comments.

First, Mr. Russell M. Stephens, the president of the American

Federation of Technical Engineers, had an out-of-town engagement, and this prevented his being here. He has asked me to announce specifically the endorsement of his organization upon this

legislation.

Prior to my arrival in Washington, Mr. Chairman, I worked in

a naval shipyard.

Mr. OLSEN. That must have been a long time ago.

Mr. MCCART. It sure was. And, as you know, part of the work

that is accomplished in these naval shipyards includes the conversion

and construction of naval vessels.

At the completion of this work, there are involved test runs and

shakedown cruises. I can recall that groups of civilian employees

would be assigned to these shakedown cruises and test runs, and these

employees would include both the craftsmen and helpers and the

classified employees from the design section of the shipyard.

Sometimes these cruises would last as many as 5 or 6 days, and

the wage board employees who were assigned to this particular job

would be eligible for hazardous pay while their colleagues who were

working with them and in some cases overseeing the work of the wage

board employees would not be able to have hazardous pay.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we fully subscribe to the principle

of hazardous pay for the wage board employees.

So I think this points up rather clearly the problem that is involved

in the legislation before you. Its purpose has been very clearly explained. There is no need for me to repeat it.

I would express the assumption that in the development of the

regulations pursuant to this bill when it becomes law, the Civil Service

Commission will follow its customary practice of consulting the employee organizations whose members will be affected by the legislation.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman, except to reiterate

that we heartily endorse the legislation you are considering.

Mr. OLSEN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCart, for your participation. It is appreciated.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. OLSEN. On the record. We have two bills, the bill by our colleague Mr. Wallhauser and the bill by our colleague Mr. Daniels. The

language is just a little bit different, as has been pointed out. We will

have that resolved.

I see one more witness in the room, Mr. Jaspan of the Postal Supervisors' organization.
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY 17

STATEMENT OF DANIEL JASPAN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS

Mr. JASPAN. Mr. Chairman, I did not come in to testify today, although we are in favor of the bill. We think it is a very good bill.

But the only thing I would suggest is that we open up the change

in the percentage for retirement, as you look into extending it, to some

of the rest of us who are not in hazardous occupations.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Jaspan.

If there are no further witnesses, this committee will now adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

0