The Washington times., 1901-10-16
GIVEN PAY FOR LABOR DAY.
by ComptroiIer's Decision, an EN-
pIoye's Claim Is Upheld

| p1Oye's Claim Is Upheld.
| Robert ]. Tracewell. Comptroller of the
Treasury, yesterday rendered an in
| teresting decision in regard to pay
| for legal holidays to employees of the
| Government. The action was taken on
| the application of an employe of the
| Government for pay for Labor Day. Sep
tember 2, as explained in the following
communication regarding the matter sent
| by Mr.. Tracewell TO w. p. Titcomb, dis
| bursting agent of the Fish Commission in
| this city:
Il have received your letter of the 1st
| instant as follows: Thomas l.. Parks.
| employed temporarily as a carpenter at
| the fish ponds, Washington. D. c.. claims
! pay for Monday. September 2 1901. which
was Labor Day, a legal holiday in the
District of Columbia He served continu-
| ously from the 10th to the 31st of August
| inclusive, with the exception of Sundays.
The list of September fell on Sunday.
Monday, as stated, was Labor Day. On
Tuesday he was absent from duty on ac-
| count of sickness in his family, but re-
ported and was on duty on Wednesday.
l respectfully request your decision as to
whether or not he is entitled to pay for
Monday. September go
Mr.. Tracewell here quotes the joint res
olution, approved January 6, 1856, and
says:
BY the act of February %, 1887, the
same provision was made for the pay of
per diem employees on Memorial or Deco
ration Day, they being by that act allow
ed that day holiday" The act of
July rs, 1894. making Labor Day a legal
holiday is then quoted and the Comp
troller continues:
This act was construed as extending
the provisions of the foregoing acts in
regard to the payment of per diem en-
ployes to Labor Day. 1t has also been
held that these statutes apply only to
those employees who, while receiving per
diem compensation, are permanently or
continuously employed and not to such as
are hired for temporary service for few
days at a time. the service of the latter
class being merely incidental to their
main employment elsewhere. a Comp.
Dec, 1897
You speak of Mr.. Parks as being en-
ployed temporarily but your statement
of his service indicates that both before
and after Labor Day he was in the public
service, and raises the presumption that
had that day not been holiday he would
have been employed and paid as on the
other days provided he worked on that
day. 1t is. therefore, assumed that he was
an employe who. by virtue of law and
under ordinary circumstances. would have
been entitled to pay for Labor Day, and
that your doubt in the matter grow out of
his failure to report for duty ON the day
Immediately following Labor Day, and, in
preceding 1t, which doubt probably arises
from a recent decision of this Office con-
STRUNG an act similar in terms TO the
foregoing. but having particular reference
TO employees of the Government Printing
Office.
1T was therein held that an act giving
pay for certain holidays to employees of
the Government Printing Office was in
tended to prevent them from losing pay
which they might earn but for the closing
of the office on those days. and was not
intended to absolutely grant them pay
for those days. irrespective of other con-
ditions which might affect their rights in
the premises Hence it was held that an
employe who was absent from duty for
a period of time during which holiday
may occur is not entitled to be paid for
such holiday, If such absence is manifest
~ for his own convenience or through his
own misfortune, or is due to some other
cause than the closing of the office on ac-
count of the holiday.
TO apply this ruling to the present
the day after September g. because of
sickness in his family, might raise the
presumption that he would have been alb
sent on that day without pay from the
same cause even II It had not been a
holiday and hence that his absence was
due to some cause other than the sus-
pension of work on account of the holi-
day, and having suffered no loss of pay
growing directly out of the holiday he
would not be entitled to pay therefor.
This, however, is a presumption which |
may be rebutted by evidence. and If you
shall find that his failure to work on |
September was caused solely by the oc-
currence of the holiday, l do not think |
that his absence on the Sunday inmedi- |
ately preceding and the day Immediately |
following would bring his case within the |
meaning of my former decision which is
that when an employe is absent under
circumstances which causes him TO lose !
his status of employe so far as his right
to pay is concerned the mere fact that a |
holiday intervenes during such absence |
does not give MIN the right to pay for |
such holiday.