These five suits were filed in the Court of Claims by respondents, who are customs inspectors stationed at the Port of Detroit. They have been selected as test cases from a larger number of similar suits. No significant difference in the claims as to services rendered or otherwise is pointed out to us, and we see none. Even the periods for which recovery is sought, September 1, 1931, through August 31, 1937, are identical. We shall therefore state the issues and explain our conclusion in terms of the Myers case only, and its determination requires a like result in the other cases.
The precise issue is whether or not the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, and Sections 401, 450 and 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930, entitle Mr. Myers to extra compensation over and above his regular salary as customs inspector for night, Sunday and holiday services performed during the stated period. Its solution depends upon whether or not, when Section 5 speaks of 'overtime services,' it includes, first, any authorized service rendered between 5 o'clock P.M. and 8'clock A.M., without regard to whether this service is within the regular hours of his assignment to duty, and, second, Sundays and holidays without regard to the tim of day when the authorized services are performed. The Court of Claims entered judgment for claimant for both nighttime and Sunday and holiday services. 99 Ct.Cl. 158.
As the difficulties of applying the statute continually arise at any port where the normal working hours of the customs employees named in the section are not limited to 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. with Sundays and holidays off, we granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Claims. 320 U.S. 722, 64 S.Ct. 45. We think the judgment should be reversed as to nighttime services and affirmed as to Sunday and holiday services.
The Port of Detroit possesses a wide variety of transportation facilities which connect it with Canada and which require customs inspection of merchandise, baggage and passengers. Evidently a rotation of assignments of posts and hours among inspectors at Detroit was carried out by the collector. Mr. Myers had either night or Sunday and holiday service or both at all the various posts of duty which are listed in the note. He was paid his annual salary throughout the period. This was a base pay of $2,100, subject to additions and subtractions which were generally applicable to government employees. The claim is for service performed at nighttime on weekdays, Sundays and holidays, and in daytime on Sundays and holidays.
At the threshold the Government urges that the statutes heretofore quoted do not create an obligation on the part of the United States to pay the extra compensation which is sought. A carrier may procure customs service at night only by special license, and the statutes say the extra compensation shall be paid 'by the licensee' to the collector of customs who shall pay the same 'to the inspectors.' As the extra compensation here sued for was not collected in whole or part from the carriers concerned, it is urged that the United States is not liable to the plaintiff.