28
Respondent argues that petitioner's election to be paid
pursuant to the reimbursable option instead of as a direct hire
reflects his intent to continue his employment relationship with
the United States. The legislation outlined herein specifically
contemplates that transferees could retain such rights and
benefits and further specifies that one of the deterrents to such
transfers was the prospect of reduced salary scales upon
transfer. We note that the London Agreement provided that the
U.S. Government was to pay its nationals assigned to NATO at
rates determined by the former.
NATO, during petitioner's term of transfer, exclusively
directed petitioner's daily activities including the sequence of
tasks, the desired results to be achieved, and the means by which
such results were to be obtained. Petitioner was accountable
solely to NATO. This is revealed not only by NATO's personnel
regulations but also by the loyalty declaration petitioner signed
upon accepting his appointment to NATO.
Respondent argues that even though petitioner may be an
employee of NATO pursuant to the common law test, petitioner also
remained an employee of the United States for purposes of section
911, by virtue of the benefits and rights he retained as a
transferred employee.
Respondent suggests that the common law test for "employee"
should be construed broadly so as to consider the significant
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011