8 FSM Intrm. 565-566

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

CHUUK STATE TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Osi v. Chuuk ,

8 FSM Intrm. 565 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998)

[8 FSM Intrm. 565]

KAWAICHI OSI et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHUUK STATE,

Defendant.

CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 76-96

JUDGMENT

Soukichi Fritz

Chief Justice

Decided: March 23, 1998

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: Nahoy Selifis, trial counselor

Micronesian Legal Services Corporation

P.O. Box D

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendant: Tony Rosokow, trial counselor

Office of the Chuuk Attorney General

P.O. Box 189

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Public Officers and Employees ) Chuuk

The regulations provide in part that overtime must be requested by the immediate supervisor and approved by his superior or the department head. Osi v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 565, 566 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Public Officers and Employees ) Chuuk

Government employees who worked overtime during inaugural ceremonies are not entitled to recovery when there is no convincing evidence that they were directed to work overtime by the proper authority such as would entitle them to overtime pay. Osi v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 565, 566 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Public Officers and Employees ) Chuuk

Overtime voluntarily performed is not compensable. Osi v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 565, 566 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

[8 FSM Intrm. 566]

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice:

This case comes before the Court for judgment and pursuant to notice, a hearing was held when the Court received evidence presented by Plaintiffs without objection, and based on such evidence, the pleadings on file and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

1. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, residents of Chuuk State and were employed by the Chuuk State Department of Education as Cooks at various Chuuk State Schools.

2. The Plaintiffs offered evidence that on several occasions, during the inauguration of the Chuuk State Governor and Lt. Governor in May, 1990, they worked overtime as directed by their supervisors.

3. Further evidence offered by Plaintiffs indicated that they prepared food and performed other duties as part of the inauguration ceremonies as instructed by their supervisors, and on that basis they are entitled to, but never received, overtime or any additional pay for their services.

No evidence was offered and none of the Plaintiffs testified that any of the overtime claimed had been done pursuant to the other requirements of the Personnel Regulations of the Public Service System promulgated pursuant the Truk S.L. No. 3-43, generally known as the State Personnel Act. Section v.b.16 of these Regulations provide in part as follows: "Control of Overtime . . . Overtime must be requested by the immediate supervisor and approved by his superior or the Department Head . . . ."

The Plaintiffs offered only slight evidence to show that the overtime pay for which they claim was approved by the superior of their supervisor or the Department Head. There is no convincing evidence that Plaintiffs were "directed to work" overtime by the proper authority such as would entitle them to overtime pay.

Plaintiffs offered nothing in writing as evidence to support their contention that their overtime was properly authorized. Section 16 c. of the regulations cited above states "that overtime voluntarily performed is not compensable."

In conclusion, the Court has reviewed the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the Plaintiffs have established all elements of a claim or right to relief. The Court has determined that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof by establishing their claim by clear and convincing evidence and they are not entitled to a recovery against the Defendants in any amount.

It is so ordered.

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA CHUUK STATE TRIAL DIVISION Cite as Osi v. Chuuk , 8 FSM Intrm. 565 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998) [8 FSM Intrm. 565] KAWAICHI OSI et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CHUUK STATE, Defendant. CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 76-96 JUDGMENT Soukichi Fritz Chief Justice Decided: March 23, 1998 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: Nahoy Selifis, trial counselor Micronesian Legal Services Corporation P.O. Box D Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 For the Defendant: Tony Rosokow, trial counselor Office of the Chuuk Attorney General P.O. Box 189 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 * * * * HEADNOTES Public Officers and Employees ) Chuuk The regulations provide in part that overtime must be requested by the immediate supervisor and approved by his superior or the department head. Osi v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 565, 566 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Public Officers and Employees ) Chuuk Government employees who worked overtime during inaugural ceremonies are not entitled to recovery when there is no convincing evidence that they were directed to work overtime by the proper authority such as would entitle them to overtime pay. Osi v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 565, 566 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Public Officers and Employees ) Chuuk Overtime voluntarily performed is not compensable. Osi v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 565, 566 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). [8 FSM Intrm. 566] * * * * COURT'S OPINION SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice: This case comes before the Court for judgment and pursuant to notice, a hearing was held when the Court received evidence presented by Plaintiffs without objection, and based on such evidence, the pleadings on file and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, residents of Chuuk State and were employed by the Chuuk State Department of Education as Cooks at various Chuuk State Schools. 2. The Plaintiffs offered evidence that on several occasions, during the inauguration of the Chuuk State Governor and Lt. Governor in May, 1990, they worked overtime as directed by their supervisors. 3. Further evidence offered by Plaintiffs indicated that they prepared food and performed other duties as part of the inauguration ceremonies as instructed by their supervisors, and on that basis they are entitled to, but never received, overtime or any additional pay for their services. No evidence was offered and none of the Plaintiffs testified that any of the overtime claimed had been done pursuant to the other requirements of the Personnel Regulations of the Public Service System promulgated pursuant the Truk S.L. No. 3-43, generally known as the State Personnel Act. Section v.b.16 of these Regulations provide in part as follows: "Control of Overtime . . . Overtime must be requested by the immediate supervisor and approved by his superior or the Department Head . . . ." The Plaintiffs offered only slight evidence to show that the overtime pay for which they claim was approved by the superior of their supervisor or the Department Head. There is no convincing evidence that Plaintiffs were "directed to work" overtime by the proper authority such as would entitle them to overtime pay. Plaintiffs offered nothing in writing as evidence to support their contention that their overtime was properly authorized. Section 16 c. of the regulations cited above states "that overtime voluntarily performed is not compensable." In conclusion, the Court has reviewed the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the Plaintiffs have established all elements of a claim or right to relief. The Court has determined that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof by establishing their claim by clear and convincing evidence and they are not entitled to a recovery against the Defendants in any amount. It is so ordered. * * * *