Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/97715/united-states-vs-myers
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 22:01:30
Document Index: 148889508

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', 'Art. 1462']

United States Vs Myers - Citation 97715 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Myers - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/97715
Decided On Jan-03-1944
Case Number 320 U.S. 561
Respondent Myers
united states v. myers - 320 u.s. 561 (1944) u.s. supreme court united states v. myers, 320 u.s. 561 (1944) united states v. myers argued december 16, 17, 1943 decided january 3, 1944 * 320 u.s. 561 certiorari to the court of claims syllabus 1. section 5 of the act of february 13, 1911, as amended, creates an obligation on the part of the united states to pay customs officers the extra compensation therein prescribed. p. 320 u. s. 567 . 2. the extra compensation which § 5 of the act of february 13, 1911, as amended, requires that customs inspectors be paid for overtime, sundays and holidays, held payable, in respect of weekday service, only for service beyond the regular daily tour of duty, whether day or.....
United States v. Myers - 320 U.S. 561 (1944)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Myers, 320 U.S. 561 (1944)
Decided January 3, 1944 *
1. Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, creates an obligation on the part of the United States to pay customs officers the extra compensation therein prescribed. P. 320 U. S. 567 .
2. The extra compensation which § 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, requires that customs inspectors be paid for overtime, Sundays and holidays, held payable, in respect of weekday service, only for service beyond the regular daily tour of duty, whether day or night, and for all service on Sundays and holidays. Pp. 320 U. S. 573 -574.
3. As the proviso of § 5 authorizes adjustments of hours but is silent as to Sundays and holidays, the section's earlier grant of extra compensation for Sundays and holidays remains unaffected by the proviso. P. 320 U. S. 575 .
4. The requirements of § 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, in respect of extra compensation, apply to services of customs inspectors at bridges and tunnels. P. 320 U. S. 575 .
5. The extra compensation required by § 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, to be paid for overtime, Sundays, and holidays is exclusive of the base pay. P. 320 U. S. 576 .
99 Ct.Cls. 158, reversed in part, affirmed in part.
These five suits were filed in the Court of Claims by respondents, who are customs inspectors stationed at the Port of Detroit. [ Footnote 1 ] They have been selected as test cases from a larger number of similar suits. No significant difference in the claims as to services rendered or otherwise is pointed out to us, and we see none. Even the periods for which recovery is sought, September 1, 1931, through August 31, 1937, are identical. We shall therefore state the issues and explain our conclusion in terms of the Myers case only, and its determination requires a like result in the other cases.
The precise issue is whether or not the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, [ Footnote 2 ] and Sections 401,
450, and 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930, [ Footnote 3 ] entitle Mr. Myers to extra compensation over and above his regular salary as customs inspector for night, Sunday and holiday services
performed during the stated period. Its solution depends upon whether or not, when Section 5 speaks of "overtime services," it includes, first, any authorized service rendered
The Port of Detroit possesses a wide variety of transportation facilities which connect it with Canada and which require customs inspection of merchandise, baggage, and passengers. [ Footnote 4 ] Evidently, a rotation of assignments of posts and hours among inspectors at Detroit was carried out by the collector. Mr. Myers had either night or Sunday and holiday service, or both, at all the various posts of duty which are listed in the note. He was paid his annual salary throughout the period. This was a base pay of $2,100, subject to additions and subtractions which were generally applicable to government employees. [ Footnote 5 ] The claim is for service performed at night-time [ Footnote 6 ]
At the threshold, the Government urges that the statutes heretofore quoted do not create an obligation on the part of the United States to pay the extra compensation which is sought. A carrier may procure customs service at night only by special license, and the statutes say the extra compensation shall be paid "by the licensee" to the collector of customs, who shall pay the same "to the inspectors." [ Footnote 7 ] As the extra compensation here sued for was not collected in whole or part from the carriers concerned, it is urged that the United States is not liable to the plaintiff. [ Footnote 8 ]
The legislative history shows that the proponents of extra compensation constantly made the point that the Government would not be out of pocket by the legislation. [ Footnote 9 ] Where the United States stood as a protector of Indians with statutory authority, carefully marked out by a series of enactments, to collect sums for the benefit of
its dependents, we held that the Government's failure to collect did not give rise to a liability. Creek Nation v. United States, 318 U. S. 629 , 318 U. S. 637 -639. In that case, we said that authorization to collect did not create a mandatory duty -- particularly where the Indians also might have sued. Likewise, under similar circumstances, we have determined that over-collection did not create liability for reimbursement. United States v. Algoma Lumber Co., 305 U. S. 415 , 305 U. S. 418 -419, 305 U. S. 423 . But here, the United States is neither protector nor agent. It is an employer who issues orders to the inspectors directing the performance of services. The work is done under the statutes. No inspector may "receive any salary in connection with his services as such an official or employee from any source other than the Government of the United States." Act of March 3, 1917, c. 163, 39 Stat. 1106. These payments are made by the licensees to the collector at rates fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury. This is extra compensation over and above the annual salary, not a payment from licensees. Section 451 requires a bond from the licensee to "pay the compensation and expenses of the customs officers," but the payment must be made to the collector under Section 5. These facts lead us to the view that the statutes create an obligation on the part of the United States to pay the inspectors such sums as they may earn under their provisions. [ Footnote 10 ]
We come, then, to an examination of the extent of the obligation under the several sections heretofore quoted in notes 2 and 3 From the earliest days, customs inspections have normally proceeded in daylight. By special license, the work of the customs might be performed at night. [ Footnote 11 ] Inspectors were on duty continuously, and, at first, were paid on a per diem basis. [ Footnote 12 ] By the Act of March 3, 1873, R.S. Section 2871, the practice of licensees of paying extra compensation for nighttime service [ Footnote 13 ] (between sunset and sunrise) was formalized by authorizing the collector to fix reasonable extra compensation and to collect and distribute it among the inspectors. The provisions of that section gradually were extended to additional employees, and to different circumstances. 23 Stat. 53, 59; 34 Stat. 633. In 1911, further changes were made by an Act for lading and unlading vessels. 36 Stat. 901. Section 5, under examination here, emerges there in nearly its present form. Extra compensation for nighttime services was continued, and was authorized for the first time for Sundays and holidays. [ Footnote 14 ] The latest changes were made in
§ 5 in 1920. "Night" services became "overtime" services. Sundays and holidays were placed at the beginning of the section in juxtaposition with "hours," which were fixed at from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. The last proviso, vesting authority in the Collector of Customs to regulate the hours of employees "so as to agree with prevailing working hours in said ports," was added. [ Footnote 15 ] The Tariff Act of 1922, Sections 401, 450 and 451, extended the provisions of Section 5 of the lading and unlading act so as to cover passengers and baggage arriving by vehicle. These sections, as they now appear in the Tariff Act of 1930, are in note 3 supra.
The Collector of Customs at Detroit, during the years in question, assigned inspectors to tours of duty of eight hours each day, which tours might be at any time within a twenty-four hour period. [ Footnote 16 ] The length of the weekly tour varied with the post and with the state of the federal legislation. The findings of the Court of Claims as to the actual results are set out in the note below. [ Footnote 17 ] In the
administration of customs, regulations based on the sections of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Section 5 of the Act of 1911 were issued by the Treasury Department. Customs Regulations
1931 and 1937 . So far as here pertinent, they are substantially alike. [ Footnote 18 ]
The legislative history of the various acts makes clear the intention of Congress to allow extra compensation only when there are overtime services in the sense of work hours in addition to the regular daily tour of duty without regard to the period within the twenty-four hours when the regular daily tour is performed. Congressman Moore
explained the purpose as follows (Hearings on H.R. 9525, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 470): [ Footnote 19 ]
"The department has under consideration a plan whereby boarding officers and inspectors of customs will be assigned to duty in eight-hour shifts, and will not therefore be called upon to work overtime, and no extra compensation paid to officers assigned to the night shift. In order to carry out such plan, it will be necessary to secure additional appropriations, and, pending the adoption of the plan, it will, of course, be necessary to detail inspectors and other employees for night work. [ Footnote 20 ]"
There are other references in the hearings to the use of the "shift" system to secure twenty-four hour service without extra compensation. The legal basis for a collector's authority to assign inspectors in this way is the last proviso of Section 5, note 2 supra. It gives the collector authority in those ports where customary working hours are other than 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. to regulate the hours
"To meet the condition at New Orleans, where the hours of labor are from 7 o'clock a.m. to 4 o'clock p.m., this proviso at the end of the bill was put in allowing collectors to adjust the inspectors' hours to the customary working hours at ports where the practices are different. This proviso also applies to the Canadian border at places where traffic is continuous during the 24 hours, such being the 'customary working hours' -- and the inspectors work in 8-hour shifts without overtime. [ Footnote 21 ]"
When we examine the language of Section 5, either without extrinsic aid or with the benefit of the historical and legislative background, we find convincing authority to support the Government's view as to the meaning of overtime. "Overtime" as we pointed out above was substituted by the 1920 amendment of Section 5 for "nighttime" services. The section requires employees to "remain" on duty. The usual instance of the payment of extra compensation would be for work after 5 P.M. by an inspector who had previously worked full time. The Government is correct in its interpretation of the last proviso of Section 5 as permitting shifts in an inspector's regular hours of work. Night assignments are an old administrative practice. It is true that the proviso apparently was passed to meet a New Orleans situation, but the language is general. It does not restrict the collector to minor variations in hours. We are led to the conclusion that overtime, as applied to week days, refers to hours longer than the daily limit of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., nine hours with one
We do not see that International Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U. S. 506 , decides otherwise . That was a suit to enjoin the Collector from enforcing the license provisions of Section 5, note 2 supra, as to passengers and baggage, against an international bridge. These were held inapplicable to bridges. In speaking of Section 5, the opinion stated:
"who may be required to remain on duty between the hours of five o'clock postmeridian and eight o'clock ante meridian, or on Sundays or holidays."
This language and the Customs Regulations, note 18 supra, give an employee who works regular hours weekdays in daytime extra pay for Sunday and holiday work. The statute covers also those who work outside the statutory normal hours. Logically, if Sundays and holidays were not to receive extra compensation without regard to whether services on those days were overtime,
The proviso of Section 5 does not give the Collector of Customs authority to make assignments which deprive inspectors of this Sunday and holiday pay. It authorizes adjustments of hours, but specifically forbids alteration of overtime pay. It is silent as to Sundays and holidays. which leaves the earlier grant of extra compensation for those days in effect. Overtime pay is also applicable to Sundays and holidays when inspectors work longer than nine hours with one hour for food and rest. The rate of overtime extra compensation on Sundays and holidays is the same as the rate for weekdays. The administrative practice is uncertain. It does not support a contrary conclusion. The Government cites excerpts from testimony on amendatory bills, not here directly involved, which indicate the extra compensation is paid for Sundays and holidays. [ Footnote 22 ] Findings 5 and 6 of the Court of Claims, note 17 supra, show that extra compensation was paid at times for Sunday and holiday services. [ Footnote 23 ]
Two further contentions of the Government require consideration. It is said that Section 5 of the 1911 Act as
amended does not apply to services rendered at a bridge or tunnel. This Court so held in 1922. International Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U. S. 506 , 257 U. S. 512 . At that time, the section's application was limited to "vessel or other conveyance." Since then Sections 401, 450 and 451 of the Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 858, 948, 954, and of the Tariff Act of 1930, note 3 supra, have expanded the instrumentalities to include every contrivance capable of being use as a means of transportation on land or water. [ Footnote 24 ] The difference in definition, we think, brings bridges and tunnels under the overtime pay requirements of Section 5.
"(f) Day. -- The word 'day' means the time from eight o'clock ante meridian to five o'clock postmeridian."
See note 2 and, for a graphic explanation of the changes, see International Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U. S. 506 , 257 U. S. 510 .
This was settled practice. International Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U. S. 506 , 257 U. S. 508 .
"( e ) The extra compensation for overtime services is in addition to the regular compensation paid by the Government in the case of officers and employees whose compensation is fixed on the ordinary per diem basis and those receiving a compensation per month or per annum."
"Art. 1462. Hours of service. -- ( a ) The official hours of officers, clerks, examiners, and employees, except those hereinafter specified, will be from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with a half hour for lunch."
"( b ) The official hours of the following employees will be: staff officers, station inspectors, and inspectors to whatever duty assigned, sugar samplers, samplers, laborers, storekeepers, and outside messengers, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 1 hour for lunch; verifiers-openers-packers and openers and packers, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., one-half hour for lunch; custom guards not less than 8 hours."
"( c ) The above hours may be extended as the needs of the service demand, and such extension shall be without additional compensation, except as provided for in the act of February 13, 1911, as amended by the act of February 7, 1920."
"( d ) The act of February 7, 1920, also provides that in those ports where customary working hours are other than those above mentioned, the collector of customs is vested with authority to regulate the hours of customs employees so as to agree with prevailing working hours in said port, but nothing contained in this proviso shall be construed in any manner to affect or alter the length of a working day for customs employees or the overtime pay fixed for such employees. . . ."
The change was deemed significant as to railroads. Compare Mellon v. Minneapolis, St.P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co., 285 F. 980, with Mellon v. Minneapolis, St.P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co., 11 F.2d 332, 334.