
    DORSEY F. SEVILLE ET AL., Letter Carriers in Washington, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 17901.
    Decided June 13, 1898.]
    
      On the commissioner’s Report.
    
    A commissioner to -whom letter-carrier cases are.referred reports tire facts in relation to overtime, and asks for instructions. The cases are those of collecting and delivery carriers; and the questions involved relate to services rendered' in excess of the time prescribed "by the postmaster's schedule. The defendants object to a recovery on the facts reported.
    I.A letter carrier is not “ employed” to work more than eight hours a day within the meaning of the Act of May 84, 1888 (25 Stat. L., p. 157) nnless he be “ engaged in actúe postal duties” with the knowledge and consent of the postmaster.
    II.Knowledge and consent can not be presumed or implied in the face of instructions from the Post-Office Department, or the postmaster, of which the carrier has notice.
    III. Subordinates have no authority to require overtime from letter carriers without the consent of the postmaster.
    IV. A collecting carrier’s service may be made to begin when he reaches the first mail box on each tour, and to end when he delivers sncli mail matter at the post-office.
    V. A delivery carrier’s service may be made to begin when he arrives at the post-office, and to end when he completes his delivery.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The commissioner to whom the cases of the above-named claimants were referred to ascertain and report the facts in relation to the overtime claimed by them respectively under the Act May 24,1888 (25 Stat. L., p. 157), desiring the opinion of the court on questions of law arising, submitted certain facts which were agreed upon by counsel. The substance of these is:
    (1) The overtime claimed to have been made by the collecting carrier, Seville, consisted of time occupied in going to and from the post-office, from and to his home morning and ■night, carrying with him, by permission of the postmaster, his satchel and keys; and for time occupied by him in going from the post office to the first mail box on his second and succeeding schedule tours of collection.
    (2) The overtime claimed by Rittenhouse and Byram, the other claimants, as delivery carriers, consists of time occupied by them while cai’rying their satchels, with the permission of the postmaster, from the place where they completed their deliveries to their respective homes at night, and for time occupied in going from their homes to the post-office in the morning.
    
      Messrs. George A. and William B. King for the claimants.
    
      Mr. A. B. Hurt, commissioner.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt for the defendants.
   Pee ctjeiam:

Although the reference of the claims to the commissioner was for the purpose of ascertaining, through him, the facts pertaining to each particular claim, the court reserving to itself the settlement of all questions of law, still, as counsel on both sides have agreed upon the facts applicable to each class of claims and united with the commissioner in requesting the opinion of the court, we will endeavor to comply therewith, as it may enable the commissioner the better to classify claims arising under different circumstances.

A letter carrier is not-“ employed ” to work more than eight hours a day within the meaning of the act of May 24, 1888 (1 Supp. R. S., 587), unless he be “ engaged in active postal duties,” with the knowledge and consent of the postmaster, who is the agent of the Government to direct such employment, and such knowledge and consent can not be presumed or implied in the face of instructions from the Post-Office Department or the postmaster, of which the carrier has notice, that no overtime shall be made.

•Subordinates have no authority to require such overtime service without the consent of the postmaster, as such consent is essential to constitute an employment of which the carrier is bound to take notice.

Under the various schedules set forth in the agreed facts, arranged so as to bring the carrier’s time within the eight-hour limit, as required by the Post-Office Department, a collecting carrier’s duty began from whatever place he started, with or without his satchel and keys (implements of work), when he reached the first mail box on his first and succeeding schedule tours of collection, and his duty ended with each tour when he had delivered such mail matter at the post-office and faced it up.

The carrier, having entered upon the discharge of his duties knowing what the schedules required, he is bound by them, and therefore whatever intervals of time may have existed between end of duty and the time required to reach the first mail box on his second and succeeding schedule tours of col-' lection were his own, during which time he was not employed or engaged in active postal duties, and he is not therefore entitled to extra pay therefor.

Under the schedules arranged so as to bring the delivery carrier’s time within the eight-hour limit, as required by the Post-Office Department, a delivery carrier’s duty thereunder began when he necessarily arrived at the post-office or other station to enter upon his several schedule tours of delivery, and his duty thereunder ended on his return, as required by the Post Office Department, to the office or station from which he started, if he did so return; otherwise his duty ended when and at the place he completed such delivery.

Having entered upon his duties knowing what the schedules required he is bound- by them, and consequently the intervals of time occupied by such carrier in going to and returning from his home or elsewhere, with or without his satchel, were his own, during which time he was not employed or engaged in active postal duties, and therefore he is not entitled to extra pay therefor.

The commissioner will be governed by what is said above in his investigation of the facts, and report to this court accordingly.

Pott, Ch. J,, did not sit in this case and took no part in the decision.  