May 17, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by SYLVIA A. STEWART 3962 Carlyle Drive at Charlotte, NC 28208-4616 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-100 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Sylvia A. Stewart 3962 Carlyle Drive Charlotte, NC 28208-4616 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Wendy J. Hankins Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 2901 South I-85 Service Road Charlotte, NC 28228-9961
DISMISSAL
As part of the Answer to the Petition, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, argued that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has filed a grievance on this matter under the union/management labor agreement and the grievance is still pending. Respondent attached a copy of a Step 2 Grievance Appeal Form, dated March 3, 2000.
Section 462.34 of the Postal Service Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) limits access of bargaining unit employees to the Postal Service’s Debt Collection Act procedures as follows:
"If an arbitrator opens a hearing on the merits of a grievance concerning any letter of demand, the statutory offset procedures in 452.3 do not apply thereafter, unless the arbitrator makes a ruling of nonarbitrability (see 462.22d) or the Postal Service and the union negotiate a partial settlement of the grievance."
The procedures in section 452.3, referenced above, are those that provide an employee an opportunity for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act before the Postal Service collects an alleged debt by involuntary salary offset. The purpose of these provisions of the ELM is to give employees a choice of initially contesting an alleged debt through either the grievance procedures, or the Debt Collection Act hearing procedures. What the section quoted above means is that, if the arbitration proceeds to a hearing and decision, an employee cannot have a second hearing under the Debt Collection Act. If, however, the grievance is concluded by something other than an arbitrator's decision and the Postal Service still intends to collect the alleged debt, Petitioner has a right to file a new petition.
Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to Respondent's argument but did not do so. This case is dismissed on the grounds stated above. Petitioner may have a right to file a new Petition, depending on how the grievance process is concluded. See ELM §462.22 and §462.34.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge