April 26, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by ROBIN HOLBROOK 509 Aylesbury Road at Delray Beach, FL 33444-3933 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-123 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Robin Holbrook 509 Aylesbury Road Delray Beach, FL 33444-3933 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: William Miranda Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service P.O. Box 163564 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-3564
DISMISSAL
Ms. Holbrook filed her Petition in this case on April 4, 2000, after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated March 21, 2000. In an Order dated April 6, 2000, it was noted that one of the documents attached to the Petition was a copy of an arbitrator's decision dated February 19, 2000. That decision dealt with the same debt alleged in the Notice and discussed the same issues that are raised in the Petition.
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. The March 21, 2000 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, which advised Petitioner of her right to file a Petition for a Debt Collection Act hearing, may have been issued to her in error. That error, however, does not create a right to a Debt Collection Act hearing that does not exist under the ELM.
Both parties were given until April 19, 2000 to address this issue. The Order stated that if neither party presented a persuasive reason why this Debt Collection Act proceeding should go forward, the case would be dismissed. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner did not reply, although our records show that she received the April 6 Order on April 12, 2000. Accordingly, for the reason stated above, this case is dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge