Appeal of NEELU S. GULRAJANI - P.S. Docket No. AO 00-266

December 22, 2000

In the Matter of the Petition by	 
					
NEELU S. GULRAJANI			
16719 Septo Street			
					
	at			
					
North Hills, CA 91343-1023		 

P.S. Docket No. AO 00-266

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Neelu S. Gulrajani
					16719 Septo Street
					North Hills, CA  91343-1023

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Kathryn J. Robinson
					Labor Relations Specialist
					United States Postal Service
					7001 S. Central Avenue, Room 304
					Los Angeles, CA  90052-9401

INITIAL DECISION

Petitioner, Neelu Gulrajani, filed a Petition challenging the Postal Service's assertion that she owed the Postal Service a debt of $669.54. Petitioner was given notice of the alleged debt in a Letter of Demand, dated June 30, 2000, and an invoice from the Accounting Service Center, dated June 7, 2000. The Petition was docketed under the procedures set forth in 39 C.F.R. Part 966, which allow a former employee to challenge collection of a debt alleged by Respondent.

During a telephone conference with the parties on August 29, 2000, it was determined that the case would be decided on written submissions, and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument. Both parties have done so.¹ The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Because of a delay in implementing the wage-increase terms of a contract between the Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) in 1999, some letter carriers suffered an income loss. On September 19, 1999, an arbitrator issued a decision to compensate those who lost income, and the Postal Service and the union then reached an agreement on how to carry out the compensation to those employees. (Answer, Ex. 2).

2. The agreement called for lump sum payments to be made to all eligible employees. Because of the difficulty in quickly determining the eligibility of all who were potentially affected, the Postal Service agreed to make a payment of $725.00, minus deductions for taxes and social security, immediately to all letter carriers who were on the rolls as of September 19, 1999. Employees were advised that those who were later determined not to be eligible would be required to pay back the money. (Answer, Ex. 1 and Ex. 2).

3. Among the categories of employees not eligible for the payment were those who were in a non-pay status for the entire period from Pay Period 25/98 through Pay Period 19/99. (Answer, Ex. 1).

4. On December 23, 1999, Respondent paid Petitioner $466.54 by check, as a net lump sum payment under the NALC settlement.² Petitioner endorsed and negotiated this check. (Answer, Ex. 7).

5. In July 1997, Petitioner's employment was terminated for reasons having to do with her ability to drive a vehicle.³ Her last day in a pay status was July 9, 1997. For reasons that are not clear in the record, her termination was not processed in the Postal Service personnel system until February 2000. (Answer, Ex. 4 and Ex. 5).

DECISION

Petitioner acknowledges that she was not eligible for the NALC lump sum payment, but argues that the debt should be waived because her supervisors never properly informed her of the circumstances of the erroneous payment.

A Hearing Official in an Administrative Offset proceeding has no authority to grant a waiver or to direct any Postal Service official to grant, or deny, a wavier.

Petitioner may still submit a request for waiver, if she has not already done so, but a request for waiver is an entirely separate process. I make no judgment as to whether a waiver might be appropriate in this case.

It is clear that Petitioner was not eligible for the NALC payment. The fact that she was erroneously paid through no fault of her own does not entitle her to keep the money. Respondent's evidence has established that Petitioner is indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $466.54. That is the amount that Petitioner received. It is inappropriate that Petitioner be required to also repay the $203.00 that was withheld for Federal income tax. Any tax consequences from this transaction are much more easily resolved by the Postal Service than by Petitioner. The Petition is denied in part and granted in part. Respondent may collect $466.54 from Petitioner.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹ By Order dated October 13, 2000, it was noted that not all required procedures had been followed in processing this case. Specifically, 39 C.F.R. §966.4(a)(2) requires that the former employee be issued a Notice from the Accounting Service Center informing her of the alleged debt and of her right to request reconsideration by the person who was her postmaster or installation head when the debt was incurred. 39 C.F.R. §966.4(a)(3) then requires that the employee request, and receive, reconsideration. 39 C.F.R. §966.4(b) states that the employee then has 30 days from receipt of the "Postmaster/Installation Head's written decision" on reconsideration to file a petition for hearing. The October 13 Order directed that Ms. Gulrajani's Petition be treated as a request for reconsideration and that the case be presented to the appropriate postmaster or installation head for decision. That was done and, on November 8, 2000, the postmaster reaffirmed the decision to go forward with debt collection. The parties were then given an opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument. Neither party did so.

² From the $725.00 gross amount, $203.00 was deducted for federal income tax, $44.95 for Social Security and $10.51 for Medicare.

³ The thrust of Ms. Gulrajani's Petition is a complaint about the correctness of the decision to terminate her employment. That is not a matter that is within the scope of this administrative offset case.