DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Board on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan filed by the employing office under 5 U.S.C. §7122, as applied by section 220(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”)(2 U.S.C. §1351(a)), and Part 2425 of the Regulations of the Office of Compliance.
The Arbitrator sustained a grievance, which, in the absence of the parties’ stipulation of issues, the Arbitrator characterized as whether the employing office is liable for liquidated damages, fees, costs, interest and attorney fees for its failure to pay bargaining unit employees’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
For the following reasons, we deny the employing office’s exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator’s Award
In 1996, with the implementation of the CAA, the employing office’s bargaining unit employees obtained coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §206(a)(1) and (d), 207,212(c), minimum wage and overtime pay provisions. In 1998, Congress also availed those employees of Sunday premium, night differential, and hazardous duty pay. Apparently late in 1998, the employing office determined and acknowledged that it had erred in not utilizing Sunday premium, night differential and hazardous duty pay in establishing its employees’ correct hourly base pay for computing their FLSA overtime entitlements. The employing office subsequently issued an employee bulletin, dated May 11, 1999, announcing its obligation to provide its employees with prospective and retroactive overtime pay once its payroll system necessarily was modified in collaboration with the National Finance Center.
On February 18, 2000, an employee filed a grievance complaining of the payment delay, requesting prompt payment for overtime owed the employees, and seeking a payment time frame schedule and bi-weekly update situation reports. The employing office responded at the third grievance stage (1) that it could not begin paying the overtime until its payroll system modifications are made and integrated with the National Finance Center; (2) that it would pay employees overtime back pay retroactive to November 8, 1998; (3) that it expected the payments to be made not later than June 2000; and (4) that it would provide employees with monthly updates until the payments were implemented. Based upon these representations the employee did not pursue his grievance further.
