October 3, 2003

In the Matter of the Petition by

JOANN SPIGNER-RICE

1810 Lafayette Avenue, #1B

at

Bronx, NY 10473-3911

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-291

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

JoAnn Spigner-Rice

1810 Lafayette Avenue, #1B

Bronx, NY  10473-3911

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Pamela Smith-Watson

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

421 8th Avenue, Room 3505

New York, NY  10199-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            In a telephone conference with the parties on September 22, 2003, a hearing in this case was set for 10:00 a.m. on October 2, 2003, in the James A. Farley Building in New York City.  The hearing was to be conducted by speakerphone, with the Hearing Official presiding from the Judicial Officer Department in Arlington, Virginia, and all other participants present at the hearing site.

            Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled time.  I then held a telephone conference, with the Postal Service representative at the hearing site and Petitioner at her work site in another post office in New York City.  Petitioner stated that the hearing “slipped my mind,” and that the case could just be dismissed.  I told Petitioner that I would not re-schedule the hearing, but would give her time to get to the hearing site if she wished to have the hearing.  She said her supervisor would not let her go because her office was busy.  She did not say that she had told her supervisor about the hearing, or that she had asked to go.  I told her that it was not true that her supervisor would not let her go, that her place of duty on October 2 was at the hearing site and that her supervisor had no authority to refuse to let her go.  I made clear to Petitioner that it was her choice whether we held the hearing, but that she would be waiving her right to a hearing if she did not appear.  She again said that the case should just be dismissed.

            The rules applicable to Debt Collection Act cases provide that if the employee has notice of a scheduled hearing but fails to appear, without showing circumstances beyond the employee’s control, it may be determined that the employee has waived the right to a hearing.  See 39 C.F.R. §961.10(b).  I find that Petitioner has waived her right to a hearing.  Accordingly, Respondent may collect the alleged debt of $1,477.66.  Petitioner must be given credit, of course, for any amounts that have already been withheld from her pay on account of this debt.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge