June 26, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by LAWRENCE CARRUTHERS, JR. 6132 Overhill Drive at Louisville, KY 40229-1160 P.S Docket No. DCA 00-114 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Charles Scialla 453 Preakness Avenue, #5 Paterson, NJ 07502-1121 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Mera E. Cole-Hayden Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 320 Whittington Parkway, Suite 302 Louisville, KY 40222-7972
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Lawrence Carruthers, Jr., filed a timely Petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on March 17, 2000. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $506.87 from his salary to recover an overpayment of salary between February and July 1999.
A hearing was held in Louisville, Kentucky on May 23, 2000.(1) The Postal Service presented testimony from Ronald Roberts, Petitioner's supervisor, Barbara Brown, who issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, Paula Howard, a finance supervisor, and Ronald Langevin, District Manager of Finance. Petitioner testified in his own behalf, and also presented testimony from Jack Barnett, an employee who had formerly received night differential pay. Both parties also relied on documents that had been filed with the Petition and the Answer. Each side presented two additional documents at the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is an industrial engineer at the United States Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center in Louisville, Kentucky. (Tr. 98).(2)
2. Prior to February 1999, Petitioner's duty hours were from 2 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. In February 1999, Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Roberts, told him that his hours were to be changed to 5 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., effective immediately. (Tr. 23, 99-100).
3. "Night differential" is a form of premium pay that is paid to eligible employees who work between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. as part or all of their normal schedule. The applicable rules are found in PS Handbook F-21, Time and Attendance, §241, and in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), §434.2. (Answer, Ex. 7 and Ex. 8; PS Ex. 1 and Ex. 2). "Night differential is not payable when service performed is in addition to the normal service day." ELM §434.223.
4. Petitioner is an employee eligible to receive night differential, and did receive it for four hours each day when his duty hours began at 2:00 a.m. After his hours changed so that his duty day began at 5:00 a.m. after February 1999, he was entitled to receive only one hour of night differential per day. For reasons that are not clear, however, the necessary change in the payroll system was not made and he continued to receive four hours of night differential until pay period 14 (July) of 1999.
5. When the error was discovered, the night differential pay was adjusted, and Petitioner was issued a Letter of Debt Determination on January 5, 2000, to recoup 354 hours of night differential pay. He requested reconsideration, which was denied on February 15, 2000, and the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued on March 16, 2000. (Answer, Exs. 1-4).
DECISION
Petitioner does not dispute the fact that his scheduled hours were changed, or that he continued to be paid the same night differential pay thereafter. Nor does he dispute the number of hours in issue - 354. He contends that he should not have to repay the money because he heard that some others have not been required to repay night differential pay to which they were not entitled. He also expressed criticism about the way this matter was handled after the error was discovered, and noted that his overpayment was very small compared to the total amount of money wasted by the Postal Service.
Respondent's position is simply that administrative errors that result in an overpayment to an employee do not entitle the employee to keep the overpayment.
There is no dispute that Petitioner's hours were changed, and that as a result of that change his regular duty hours after February 1999 only entitled him to one hour of night differential pay per day. The fact that he did not cause the error, or that postal officials were slow in discovering and correcting it, does not relieve him of the obligation to pay back an overpayment. The other cases he points to in arguing that he was singled out are not relevant here. The evidence presented at the hearing as to those cases was either that those individuals requested waivers of their indebtedness and that waivers were granted, or that the cases were not factually similar to Petitioner's. As was made clear to all parties at the hearing, a waiver request is something entirely separate from this proceeding. A Debt Collection Act Hearing Official has no authority to grant a waiver, or to direct any postal official to grant, or deny, a waiver. This decision expresses no opinion as to whether waivers were appropriate in other cases, or whether a waiver would be appropriate in Petitioner's case.
Respondent has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner was overpaid in the amount alleged, and Petitioner has shown no basis for finding that he is not indebted to the Postal Service. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $506.87 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
2 Reference is to the hearing transcript. References to the tabbed exhibits attached to Respondent's Answer will be Answer, Ex. _. References to documents introduced at the hearing will be PS Ex. _, or Pet. Ex. _.