April 17, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
DANIEL L. MOURER
P.O. Box 277
at
Chicora, PA 16025-0277
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-11
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Daniel L. Mourer
P.O. Box 277
Chicora, PA 16025-0277
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Anthony J. Bernat
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
2709 Legion Road
Erie, PA 16515-9421
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Daniel Mourer, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on November 8, 2001. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,018.92 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment in 1999.
Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties filed additional material. Respondent's submissions included a sworn declaration from Brenda Jaworski, a specialist in financial and personnel matters. Petitioner submitted his own sworn statement. In response to a March 4, 2002 Order directing the parties to provide additional information on some specific issues, both parties filed clarifying statements. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a rural mail carrier. On January 29, 1999, he suffered a job-related injury that caused him to be unable to work his full regular duty hours for nearly a year. At the time of his injury, Petitioner was being paid at a rate of 40 hours per week, based on the evaluation of his mail route. (Petition; Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-2 (PS Form 50)).
2. Postal Service pay regulations provide that a rural carrier who is injured on the job and therefore entitled to Continuation of Pay (COP), will be paid at the rate in effect on the date of the injury. This is designated as "special salary code E." (Answer, Ex. A (Handbook F-1, Time and Attendance, §583 and §584); Jaworski Declaration).
3. From the time of his injury until mid-August 1999, Petitioner worked a near normal schedule, and he was paid at the 40 hours per week rate until August 28, 1999. From August 13 through October 25, 1999, he was absent from work due to surgery and recuperation. He was not placed on a "limited duty" schedule until late October 1999. He was returned to full duty in late January 2000. (Both parties' response to March 4, 2002 Order; PS Ex. F-8).
4. The evaluation of Petitioner's route changed, effective August 28, 1999, and as of that date he was paid at the rate of 42 hours per week. (Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-3 (PS Form 50)).
5. The evaluation of his route changed again, effective November 6, 1999, and as of that date he was paid at the rate of 46 hours per week. (Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-4 (PS Form 50)).
6. Petitioner was not placed in "special salary code E" when he should have been, i.e., shortly after January 29, 1999. A series of personnel actions (PS Form 50s) shows the following chronology:
12-10-1999. Action to remove Petitioner from special salary code E, effective November 6, 1999. (Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-5).
12-23-1999. Action to cancel 12-10-99 action because Petitioner had never been put in special salary code E. Same action then placed Petitioner in
special salary code E effective November 6, 1999, at a rate of 48 hours per week. (Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-6).
12-28-1999. Action to correct errors in previous Form 50. This action placed Petitioner in special salary code E effective January 30, 1999, at the rate of 40 hours per week. (Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-7).
02-02-2000. Action to remove Petitioner from salary code E effective January 29, 2000, based on his release to perform full duties. Effective January 29, 2000, he was to be paid at the rate of 46 hours per week. (Jaworski Declaration; PS Ex. F-8).
7. On April 17, 2001, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand for $1,018.92, alleging that he had been erroneously paid at the 42 hour route rate for pay periods 19/99 through 23/99, and that he had been erroneously paid at the 46 hour route rate for pay periods 24/99 through 26/99. (Answer, Ex. C). The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for the same amount was issued to Petitioner on November 5, 2001, although the Notice incorrectly cited only pay periods 19-23/1999.
DECISION
Respondent's position is that because of administrative errors and delays in updating Petitioner's status in the personnel system, he was incorrectly paid in pay periods 19-26 of 1999 (see Findings #4-6). Respondent also contends, in response to Petitioner's argument, that being on leave does not change an employee's rate of pay under the pertinent provisions of the Time and Attendance Handbook.
Petitioner does not dispute the fact that he received the pay that Respondent alleges, nor does he dispute that the Time and Attendance Handbook provides for injured carriers on COP to be paid at the hourly rate in effect on the date of the injury (See Finding #2). He contends that if Postal Service officials had informed him in a timely manner that he would not be paid at the higher rates when his route evaluation changed, he could have used annual leave. Part of his argument is that, while on leave, he would have been paid based on whatever his route evaluation was at the time. In support of this argument, he attached two leave slips and pay stubs that he says show he was paid at the rate his route was evaluated, not at a "protected salary rate."[1]
These leave slips and pay stubs do not prove Petitioner's point. The first, Exhibit D, is for two days in April 1999. At that time Petitioner's route was still evaluated at 40 hours per week and he was being paid at that rate. The second, Exhibit E, is for two days in August 2000. By then, Petitioner had returned to full duty, the necessary corrections to his records had been made, and he was being paid in accordance with his route evaluation then in effect (see Finding #6 and PS Ex. F-8). These leave slips and pay stubs do not show that Petitioner was paid at a higher rate while on leave than he would have been on duty status for the same dates.
Respondent has carried its burden of proving that Petitioner was incorrectly paid for the period in issue, pay periods 19-26 of 1999. It is not entirely clear how the figure $1,018.92 is calculated, but because Respondent has adequately shown the basis for the overpayment and because Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of the calculation, $1,018.92 is accepted as accurate.
The Petition is denied. As Respondent has already collected $1,018.92 by withholding from Petitioner's salary, the debt has been paid.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge