Baca v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 646, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 115, 1962 WL 1546
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJune 6, 1962
DocketNo. 489-57
StatusPublished

This text of 157 Ct. Cl. 646 (Baca v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baca v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 646, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 115, 1962 WL 1546 (cc 1962).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

On June 8,1960, the court entered judgment for certain of the plaintiffs in this case with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to Pule 38(c). 150 Ct. d. 70, cert, denied 364 TJ.S. 892. Mastín G. White, a trial commissioner of this court, on February 12, 1962, filed a supplemental report setting forth additional findings of fact and recommendations for conclusions of law. Exceptions to the commissioner’s supplemental report were taken by the defendant, briefs were filed by both parties and the case was submitted to the court on oral argument by counsel. Since the court is in agreement with the supplemental findings and recommendations of the trial commissioner, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, judgments will be entered for the individual plaintiffs in the amounts as set forth in the conclusion of law.

It is so ordered.

Davis, Judge, took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION OP COMMISSIONER

The issue of liability in this case was disposed of by the court in its decision of June 8,1960. At that time, the court held that certain of the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, [648]*648and dismissed the petition as to them. The court held that other plaintiffs were entitled to recover on some phases of their claims, and remanded the case to the commissioner for a determination under Eule 38 (c) regarding the respective amounts due such plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, in accordance with the court’s decision. It was necessary to receive additional evidence in the proceedings pursuant to Eule 38 (c).

The plaintiffs were employed by the Department of the Army as civilian bus drivers to provide transportation service for persons working at the military installation formerly known as the White Sands Proving Ground and now known as the White Sands Missile Eange. They filed this action for the recovery of overtime compensation, contending that their regular hours of labor exceeded 40 per week.

The bus runs on which the plaintiffs worked were known as Class A runs or as Class B runs. • The Class A runs provided transportation at a fare of 25 cents per one-way trip for persons who lived in or near Las Cruces or Alamogordo or Hatch, New Mexico, or El Paso, Texas, and who worked at White Sands. A driver having a Class A run drove with' his passengers in the morning, before the beginning of the regular workday, from one of the towns previously mentioned to White Sands; and then in the afternoon, after the end of the regular workday, he returned with his passengers to the particular town. The Class B runs provided free transportation during the workday over specified routes and on the basis of fixed schedules for White Sands personnel needing such service in connection with the performance of their official duties. The various Class B runs were customarily assigned on a weekly basis to bus drivers who also had morning and afternoon Class A assignments to operate buses between the civilian communities previously mentioned and White Sands.

In the initial decision, it was found that the Class B runs were inaugurated by the management at White Sands sometime in 1952, and that, from such time until sometime in 1954, the bus driver assigned to a typical Class B run for a particular week was required each workday during the week [649]*649to make four round trips — two in the morning and two in the afternoon — over the prescribed route during the interval between his morning Class A trip from a civilian community to White Sands and his evening Class A trip from White Sands back to the civilian community. The court held that on such a workday, the bus driver was entitled to 3% hours’ overtime compensation.

Since the court in its initial decision did not determine exactly when in 1952 the management at White Sands inaugurated the system of having bus drivers operate four morning and afternoon round trips on a Class B run daily, as well as their regular morning and evening Class A trips, or exactly when in 1954 the system of day-long activity was discontinued, it is necessary to make these determinations in the present proceedings under Buie 38(c). The parties have agreed on October 23, 1954, as the date on which the system ended, but they are in disagreement as to when in 1952 the system was inaugurated. There is a conflict in the evidence on the latter point. After weighing all the pertinent evidence in the entire record, it is my opinion that the more persuasive evidence indicates that the system is question was begun as early as March 2,1952.

There is another problem in connection with the computation of the overtime compensation due certain plaintiffs with respect to the operation of both Class B runs and Class A runs during the 1952-1954 period previously mentioned. The court does not have before it any records indicating precisely the particular workdays on which any plaintiff operated four morning and afternoon round trips on a Class B run in addition to his morning and evening Class A trips. The overall evidence indicates that the bus drivers who were involved in the system had both Class B runs and Class A runs for most of the workweeks during the 1952-1954 period. On the other hand, the more persuasive evidence indicates that none of the bus drivers was so engaged every workweek throughout the period. In the first place, allowance must be made for the weeks and days when the various drivers were in a pay status but absent on annual leave or sick leave (although detailed information along this line is not available [650]*650in the evidence before the court). Also, it has been found by the court that the number of drivers with Class A runs exceeded the number of Class B runs during the 1952-1954 period, which means that not every driver had both a Class B assignment and a Class A assignment for each workweek and workday when he was on duty. When these various factors are taken into account, it is my opinion that it would be fair to conclude generally that the various plaintiffs who qualify for overtime compensation in comiection with the operation of both Class B and Class A runs during the 1952-1954 period worked overtime on 80 percent of the workdays during that period when they were in a pay status.

The views expressed up to this point in the supplemental opinion are reflected in the additional findings 49-60.

Another point on which the court’s decision of June 8, 1960, was favorable to some plaintiffs involved the operation, beginning in 1956, of a mixed Class B and Class A daytime bus run from White Sands to El Paso, and then back to White Sands. The court held that a bus driver who operated that run on any workday, in addition to a regular Class A run, was entitled to compensation for 1 hour of overtime. The parties have reached an agreement, which is incorporated in additional finding 61, respecting the amounts of the overtime compensation due certain plaintiffs in connection with the operation of the mixed Class B and Class A bus run between White Sands and El Paso.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OE FACT

49. (a) The plaintiff Floyd D. Campbell (4) was employed as a bus driver at White Sands during the period from August 30, 1953, to October 23, 1954, and thereafter. During the period mentioned, he worked overtime 3% hours per day on 80 percent of the workdays in operating both Class A and Class B runs.

(b) Commencing August 30, 1953, and ending Januairy 2, 1954, Floyd D.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 Ct. Cl. 646, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 115, 1962 WL 1546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baca-v-united-states-cc-1962.