In the Matter of the Petition by	)	February 25, 1998
					)
JOANNE SULLIVAN				)
11 Spencer Street			)
					)
	at				)
					)
Agawam, MA 01001-1328			)	P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-424
 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		John D. Petrin
					23 Warner Street
					Greenfield, MA 01301-1823

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 		John D. Wallace
					Labor Relations Specialist 
					United States Postal Service 
					190 Fiberloid Street
					Springfield, MA 01152-9405

Petitioner, Joanne Sullivan, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated October 21, 1997, signed by John L. Stone, Supervisor of Accounting Services, Springfield District. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $221.56 from Petitioner's salary to recover a "payroll related debt."

Petitioner originally requested an oral hearing, but eventually agreed that a decision on the written record was appropriate. By Order dated January 20, 1998, both parties were given until February 8, 1998 to submit additional evidence and arguments, and until February 20, 1998 to submit rebuttal.

The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner is a clerk with seventeen years of service with the Postal Service. In March 1996, Petitioner requested that she be assigned "light duty," because of a medical disability. Because she did not comply with management instructions about filling out a Light Duty Form (LDF), she was placed on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) for the period March 16 - April 13, 1996 (pay periods 7 and 8).

2. In May 1996, Petitioner filed a grievance, in the form of an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaint. The case was heard by an Arbitrator, who ruled in favor of Petitioner on July 19, 1996. He directed that Petitioner be paid at the straight time rate for the 160 hours she had been on LWOP.

3. Reimbursement for the lost pay was paid to Petitioner in pay period 22 of 1996. However, no deductions were taken for Petitioner's union dues or her contribution to her retirement account, that would have accrued during pay periods 7 and 8 of 1996.

4. On June 25, 1997, the Postal Service Finance Center issued an Invoice in the amount of $221.56 for Petitioner's union dues and retirement, which should have been, but were not, deducted from her pay for pay periods 7 and 8 of 1996. As shown by pay records attached to Respondent's Answer, the breakdown of this figure is $97.29 for retirement, and $13.49 for union dues, for each of the two pay periods.⁽¹⁾

Contentions of the Parties

Although Respondent submitted no additional evidence or argument in response to the January 20, 1998 Order, and no argument is fully articulated in the Answer, it appears that Respondent's position is simply that failure to make the deductions that are in issue here was an administrative error, and that the Postal Service is entitled to correct that error by collecting back the overpayment that was made to Petitioner.

Petitioner makes several arguments, but they all deal with procedural matters, rather than the merits of the alleged debt. She complains that Respondent did not provide the name of the person who made the error, or the name of the person who discovered the error, and did not provide records showing distribution of funds to her retirement account and the union. She complains that the June 25, 1997 Invoice did not give an itemized breakdown of the $221.56, and that this breakdown was not provided to her until after she filed her Petition. She also complains that she did not receive the July 2, 1997 Letter of Demand in a timely manner, and that this letter is confusing because it refers to premiums for health benefits.⁽²⁾

Petitioner makes no argument that deductions for retirement and union dues should not have been taken from the back pay awarded to her by the Arbitrator's decision. Nor does she make any argument that the calculation of those amounts, as shown in the pay records filed by Respondent, is not correct. That being the case, the names of the persons who made, or discovered, the error are not relevant. Likewise, in the absence of any claim that the calculation has been done incorrectly, failure of Respondent to provide records of other distribution of funds, if there are such records, is not relevant. The itemization of the $221.56 total has been clear for some time, and the failure to itemize it in the original Invoice does not excuse Petitioner from paying the debt.

The back pay awarded to Petitioner is subject to deductions for union dues and retirement. Respondent may collect $221.56 from Petitioner's salary.⁽³⁾ The Petition is denied.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge 

2. The reference to health benefits was an apparent error by the author of that letter. Health benefits premiums have nothing to do with this case.

3. On November 3, 1997, Petitioner filed an EEO Complaint, asking that the $221.56 debt be waived. In this case, she asks that, if her Petition is denied, collection be deferred until the EEO Complaint is acted upon. A Hearing Official in Debt Collection Act proceedings has no authority to grant a waiver, or to direct that collection be deferred. Petitioner's waiver request should be processed through the appropriate channels, and any decision on deferring collection should be made by the appropriate Postal Service officials.