October 19, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by YOLANDA Y. CRENSHAW P.O. Box 512042 at Los Angeles, CA 90051-0042 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-316 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Norman B. Wright P. O. Box 512645 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0645 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Lupe Montoya Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 7001 S. Central Avenue, Room 304 Los Angeles, CA 90052-9401
DISMISSAL
In 1994, Petitioner was involuntarily placed in a lower level position, her grade changing from Level 6 to Level 5, Step G. In 2000, Respondent reevaluated this action and concluded that she should have been placed in Level 5, Step F. Respondent recalculated Petitioner’s pay for the intervening years and concluded she was overpaid by $768.46. Respondent’s claim against Petitioner for that amount gave rise to this Debt Collection Act proceeding which was initiated by the August 17, 2000 docketing of her Petition. A hearing under the Debt Collection Act was held on October 6, 2000, but before it was concluded, it came to light that Petitioner’s union had filed a grievance that overlapped the issues in the DCA proceeding.
The union’s September 2000 grievance challenged the level to which Petitioner was assigned in 1994, questioned whether she was entitled to "saved rate" or "saved grade" when she was demoted instead of the "protected rate" that was afforded her, and argued that her situation was not handled as required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It is Petitioner’s position that once the action is corrected, she will be owed back pay, and her back pay claim will be considered in the grievance. The grievance has been denied at Step 2, and the union intends to advance it to Step 3.
As resolution of the dispute between Petitioner and the Postal Service appears to turn, at least in part, on interpretation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the grievance process may be the better avenue for addressing Petitioner’s claim. Additionally, ultimately she seeks to recover back pay, which could not be awarded in a DCA proceeding, even were she to persuade the hearing official that she was placed in the correct level in 1994 or that for other reasons her pay should have been higher. The DCA procedures would only result in a determination whether Respondent could collect the amount of $768.46, or some lesser amount, by deductions from Petitioner’s salary. As discussed at the hearing, no purpose would be served by continuing the DCA proceeding under these circumstances. In view of the above, P. S. Docket No. DCA 00-316 is dismissed.
The record made at the hearing and the documents submitted will be retained by the Recorder. If the grievance is resolved short of arbitration (see Section 462.34 of the Postal Service Employee and Labor Relations Manual) and Respondent issues a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, Petitioner may file a new Petition seeking consideration of the debt under the Debt Collection Act, and the record created so far will be incorporated to the extent practicable. The parties did not oppose dismissal under these circumstances.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge