Sweeney v. United States

177 Ct. Cl. 651, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102, 1966 WL 8898
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 16, 1966
DocketNo. 133-65
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 Ct. Cl. 651 (Sweeney 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
Sweeney v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 651, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102, 1966 WL 8898 (cc 1966).

Opinion

Dureeb, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, a former civil employee, brings this action to recover earnings alleged to have been lost by his transfer on December 24, 1961 from the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP) to the Department of the Interior (Interior) prior to his removal from Interior by a reduction in force.

Although the parties come to issue on several points on their cross motions for summary judgment, the basic question is whether or not there was a valid and binding transfer of plaintiff’s function from OEP to Interior, which required or justified the transfer of plaintiff to Interior.

In 1953 all functions involved in the stockpiling of strategic defense materials were transferred to the Office of Defense Mobilization (ODM) in the Executive Office of the President.1

In 1954 Defense Mobilization Order 1-13, 19 F.B. 7348 directed the Secretary of the Interior to assist O.D.M. in formulating plans for the acquisition and stockpiling of these strategic defense materials.

The ODM became the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization (OCDM) in 1958 by statute and executive order,2 and was then authorized to issue Emergency Preparedness Orders.3 Under this authority, OCDM ordered the Secretary of the Interior to develop, subject to direction and control by OCDM, national emergency and preparedness programs, including the stockpiling of strategic and critical materials.4

Congress on August 17,1961, enacted the Executive Office Appropriations Act of 1961, 75 Stat. 342. The Act which reduced the appropriation of OCDM, contained the following limitation:

* * * Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be available for not to exceed 310 positions in the District of Columbia area: * * *

[654]*654On. September 22, 1961, the name of the OCDM was changed to the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP). 75 Stat. 630.

On November 16,1961, the Director of OEP wrote to the Department of the Interior:

Emergency Preparedness Order No. 7 issued by OCDM on January 10, 1961, pursuant to Eeorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, Executive Order 10773 of July 1,1958, as amended, and Executive Order 10902 of January 9, 1961, assigns to the Secretary pf the Interior the responsibility for preparing national emergency plans and developing preparedness programs covering electric power, petroleum and gas, solid fuels, and minerals. In this connection I am now prepared to transfer to your Department seven employees and funds for their positions. This is consistent with the President’s intentions of reconstituting the Office of Emergency Planning as a staff agency in the Executive Office.
The Director, Bureau of the Budget is in full accord with this action. Pie has given assurance that the Bureau will give favorable consideration to your Fiscal Year 1963 budget requests for the continuation of these positions. You should, however, advise the Bureau of any additional requirements imposed by this transfer so that the Bureau may provide for them during its ‘mark-up’ process.
I wish to complete the transfer of these positions together with the necessary records, property and available funds, at the earliest possible date. I have, therefore, requested my staff to meet with members of your Department to negotiate this transfer.
A copy of this letter has been sent to the Director, Bureau of the Budget.

Plaintiff was one of the seven employees mentioned in this letter. He was employed in OEP as an Industrial Specialist (Ferro Alloys and Light Metals) GS-1150-13 Y4. In this position plaintiff generally coordinated the development of supply-requirement studies and program proposals on individual ferrous metals, ferro alloys, and light metals. This work was performed under the supervision of a GS-15 branch chief. There was at least one other employee performing the same functions as plaintiff in OEP. Both were in competitive level IA, but plaintiff’s co-worker had been employed longer, and hence had more retention points.

[655]*655On. November 24, 1961, plaintiff received tbe following-letter from OEP:

Emergency Preparedness Order No. 7 issued by OCDM on January 10, 1961, pursuant to Keorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, Executive Order 10773 of July 1, 1958, as amended, and Executive Order 10902 of January 9,1961, assigns to the Secretary of Interior the responsibility for preparing national emergency plans and developing preparedness programs covering electric power, petroleum and gas, solid fuels, and minerals.
In view of the above, action is being taken to transfer you to the Department of Interior with no change in position, grade, salary or tenure.
As soon as the effective date of your transfer is determined, you will be notified.

Prior to such transfer, plaintiff was told by the Department of the Interior that there was no existing job for him in Interior, and that the Office of Minerals Mobilization (OMM) in Interior was not enlarging its permanent staff regardless of whether Interior’s mobilization functions were being increased.

On December 8, 1961, the arrangements governing the transfer of plaintiff and the other employees was confirmed by a letter of the OEP, which recited:

You have indicated that you are agreeable to the transfer of seven employees engaged in preparedness programs concerning electric power, petroleum and gas, solid fuels, and minerals to the Department of Interior, as proposed by Mr. Ellis’ letter of November 16, 1961. Accordingly, funds amounting to $34,500 to finance the personal services and benefits of these employees for the period December 24, 1961, through June 30, 1962, will be advanced by Standard Form 1051 from the OEP Salaries and Expenses appropriation. Appropriate office equipment will be transferred with the employees. The Interior Department will assume budgetary responsibility for these positions in F.Y. 1963 and thereafter. Acceptance of the above terms and conditions should be indicated by signature on the original and two copies of this letter.

Sincerely,

William S. Heffelfinger

Accepted, Dec. 15,1961 D. Otis Beasley

Administrative Assistant Secretary

[656]*656On December 23, 1961, plaintiff was separated from bis position in OEP and received a notification of personnel action describing tbe act as “Separation (Transfer).” He also received a notification of personnel action as of December 24, 1961, transferring bim to the OMM in tbe Department of Interior. Tbe other employee in plaintiff’s competitive group at OEP was similarly transferred.

After plaintiff was sworn in at Interior, be was told by the Director of tbe OMM, in Interior, that there was no permanent, continuing position available for bim; that tbe office was not enlarging its staff; that its budget had been cut; that tbe office was facing a reduction in force and that plaintiff would be put on a special project which would not extend beyond June 30, 1962, but that plaintiff should use his time in looking for another job.

On February 16, 1962, by Executive Order No. 10997 (27 F.E.

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

Related

Di Puma
184 Ct. Cl. 803 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Morris
181 Ct. Cl. 1203 (Court of Claims, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 Ct. Cl. 651, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102, 1966 WL 8898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-united-states-cc-1966.