November 25, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
EUGENE ALEXANDER
SD Station
562 Kapock Street
at
Bronx, NY 10463-6472
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-487
DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner, Eugene Alexander, filed a Petition without any supporting documents or other information required by 39 C.F.R. §961.4. As its Answer to the Petition, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that there was no jurisdiction to hear a Debt Collection Act Petition because an arbitrator had issued a ruling on a grievance involving the same debt that is the subject of this Petition.
Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion and did so. The following findings of fact are based on Petitioner's reply and the documents attached to Respondent's motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 17, 1999, Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for $165.00 for an alleged shortage in an account for which he was responsible. (Grievance documents attached to Respondent's motion).
2. Petitioner's union filed a grievance on his behalf and the union's request for relief was denied at each step of the grievance process. The matter was scheduled for a hearing before an arbitrator on June 25, 2001. (Grievance documents attached to Respondent's motion).
3. On September 3, 2002, Arbitrator Randall M. Kelly issued an Order stating that the Grievant, although properly notified of the date, time and location of the hearing, failed to appear. The Arbitrator then granted the Postal Service's motion to dismiss, over objection from the union, and dismissed the case with prejudice. (Order attached to Respondent's motion).
DECISION
In his reply to the motion, and in a supplement to his Petition, Petitioner states that he never had a hearing on this matter. As to the merits of the debt, he states that he should have been given credit for an overage that was related to the shortage.
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.
Although Petitioner argues that he never had a hearing, he has not disputed anything said in Arbitrator Kelly's Order. Whether his failure to appear at the arbitration hearing was his fault or the fault of a union representative is a matter between Petitioner and his union. It does not, however, entitle him to another hearing. An arbitration hearing was scheduled, the parties were notified, and the arbitrator was prepared to conduct the hearing. His dismissal of the case under those circumstances fits within the language of ELM §462.34 quoted above. Respondent was not required to issue a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets and Petitioner is not entitled to a Debt Collection Act hearing.
Respondent's motion is granted and the Petition is dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge