July 9, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by BRENDA J. HAILEY 276 Murray Hill Ave., NE at Atlanta, GA 30317-1317 P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-155 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Brenda J.Hailey 276 Murray Hill Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30317-1317 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: David C. Lamb Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service P.O. Box 599351 North Metro, GA 30026-9351
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Brenda J. Hailey, filed a Petition for hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Manager of Accounting Services for the Atlanta District. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $995.95 from Petitioner's salary to recover an overpayment.
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. The parties were given the opportunity to file additional evidence and argument, beyond what was filed with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties did so. The Postal Service submission included sworn declarations from Vivian Robinson, Human Resources Specialist, Injury Compensation, and Barbara Green, Supervisor, Accounting Services. Petitioner submitted her own affidavit. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been employed by the Postal Service for approximately thirteen years. Due to an on-the-job injury, she has not worked since December 1998. (Hailey affidavit, June 5, 2001).
2. On July 23, 1999, Petitioner was paid a net amount of $12,934.53 ($13,872.57 minus deductions) by the Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP), Department of Labor. This payment covered the period December 26, 1998 through June 19, 1999. (Answer, Ex. 1, pp.1-2; Robinson Declaration).
3. In pay periods 3/99 and 11/99, for reasons that are not clear, Petitioner was paid gross pay by the Postal Service in the amounts $705.50 and $726.04. Both pay periods were within the time covered by the OWCP payment. It appears that these were periods of time for which she was charged with leave. (Answer, Ex. 1, pp. 6-9; Green Declaration).
4. On September 18, 2000, the District Finance Office, on instruction from the Postal Service Accounting Service Center in Minneapolis, prepared two pay adjustment requests, PS Form 2240, to recover an overpayment for 40 hours in pay period 3/99 and 40 hours in pay period 11/99. (Answer, Ex.1, pp. 4-5; Green Declaration).
5. On December 20, 2000, the Accounting Service Center issued Petitioner an invoice for the net amount, $995.95, and on December 27, 2000, the Manager, Accounting Services, issued her a letter of demand for that amount. (Answer, Ex. 2, pp. 2-4).
6. When Petitioner did not act to repay the alleged debt, the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued and Petitioner filed her Petition under the Debt Collection Act.
DECISION
Petitioner claims to have "no knowledge" of being paid for leave while she has been away from work, and argues that Postal Service management is responsible for any error that has occurred.
Respondent's position is that Petitioner has been paid twice for the same hours in pay periods 3/99 and 11/99 and, regardless of who made the error, she is not entitled to keep the overpayment.
Respondent's evidence that Petitioner was in fact paid by the Postal Service for pay periods 3/99 and 11/99 consists of a document titled "UCIS Browse/Update pay period gross data," two computer generated pay summaries for those two pay periods, and the declaration of Ms. Green who states that these documents show that Petitioner was compensated by the Postal Service in the two amounts, $705.50 and $726.04. In the absence of an unequivocal denial by Petitioner that she received these payments, or any bank records from Petitioner that would support such a denial, Respondent's evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was paid by the Postal Service for time for which the Office of Workers Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, also paid her. It is not clear why this happened, but fault is not an issue in cases such as this. As Petitioner has not shown any basis for relieving her of the obligation to repay the overpayment, the Petition is denied.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge