Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
OPM Contact: Paul Britner
An employee requests reconsideration of our settlement denying his claim for administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO). The settlement is affirmed.
AUO is paid as a fixed percentage that is added to the pay of an employee who works irregular and unscheduled overtime. The authority to pay AUO is found at 5 U.S.C. 5545(c) and implementing regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 C.F.R. 550.151 et seq. An employees AUO rate is based in part on the employees past record of overtime work. Agencies also must determine, however, that the irregular and unscheduled overtime work "will continue over an appropriate period with a duration and frequency sufficient to meet the minimum requirements" prescribed in OPMs regulations. 5 C.F.R. 550.153(b)(3).
In the office involved here, employees log their overtime hours on a monthly form. The employees supervisors then review the forms and certify the activities that qualify for AUO. Every quarter, these forms are reviewed to determine the AUO rate, if any, for the next quarter. In this office, the official delegated the authority to approve AUO rates is a designated Deputy.
The employee asserts that his supervisors signature on three monthly claim forms for AUO during the fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 1994 automatically qualifies him to receive AUO during the 1st quarter of FY 95. However, based on the offices expectations of the employees work for the upcoming quarter, the designated Deputy chose to pay the employee for the overtime hours actually worked the preceding quarter, rather than to authorize AUO for the next quarter.
We find that the agency acted properly. Past hours of work, even when it meets the general criteria for AUO, do not automatically qualify an employee for AUO. As noted above, agencies must determine that the work is expected to continue into the future. Under the offices procedures, which are consistent with OPMs regulations, this determination is made by a designated Deputy who, in this case, chose not to approve an AUO rate for the employee for the 1st quarter of FY 95. We find no basis to object to this determination.
Accordingly, the settlement denying the employees claim is affirmed. The claim may not be paid.