April 22, 2003

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

BILLIE J. BAILEY

 

at

 

2612 Filmore Avenue

Memphis, TN 38114-4938

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-29

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Avis Beard

Union Representative

555 South 3rd Street

Memphis, TN  38101-9998

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Joseph Pegues, Jr.

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

555 South 3rd Street, Room 327

Memphis, TN  38101-9401

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Billie J. Bailey, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Manager of Post Office Operations, dated January 9, 2003.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $987.16 from Petitioner’s salary to recover unpaid health benefits premiums.

            Petitioner requested a hearing on written submissions.  The parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  In an Order dated February 21, 2003, and in a telephone conference on March 18, 2003, the parties were advised to present the same evidence they would present at an oral hearing, i.e., any relevant documents, and sworn statements from witnesses who can explain the documents and who have knowledge of pertinent facts.  Neither party filed anything.  The following findings of fact are based on the material submitted with the Petition and the Answer.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Sometime in 2001, Petitioner was removed from the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan because she had not paid her union dues.  On August 12, 2002, the Secretary of the National Mail Handlers Union wrote to the Manager of Finance for the Tennessee District, stating that Petitioner had paid her delinquent dues and was restored to active membership in the union.  The union asked that Petitioner be provided continuous coverage in the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan.  (Mark A. Gardner letter, attached to Answer).

            2.  On August 29, 2002, a Postal Service Human Resources Specialist in Memphis, Tennessee, sent the union’s August 12 letter to the Postal Service Accounting Service Center in Minnesota, with a memo stating that Petitioner was reinstated into the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan.  (Memo attached to Answer).

3.  On October 9, 2002, the Accounting Service Center generated an invoice for $987.16, indicating that Petitioner owed that amount for health benefits premiums from pay period 19 of 2001 through pay period 20 of 2002.  (Invoice attached to Answer).

4.  On November 6, 2002, Petitioner’s supervisor issued her a Letter of Demand for $987.16.  On January 9, 2003, the same supervisor issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.[1]

            5.  Regulations governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890.  Under 5 C.F.R. §890.502(a), an employee is deemed to incur an indebtedness to the United States in any pay period during which enrollment in the FEHBP continues but a deduction for, or direct payment of, the employee's share of the premium is not made.

DECISION

            Respondent has filed no document other than the invoice to establish pay period 19 of 2001 as the starting point of the alleged debt, and no statement from any witness to explain the import of the few documents that were filed.  However, in the absence of anything from Petitioner to dispute the fact that she did not pay health insurance premiums from pay periods 19/2001 through 20/2002, or the fact that she was covered by the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan during that period, the invoice is deemed to be accurate and the evidence of record is sufficient to establish the debt.

            Petitioner has made no argument as to why she does not owe the alleged debt.  Her supplement to the Petition, dated February 11, 2003, implies that this matter should have been corrected sooner, either by her union or the Postal Service.  Even if that is true, the rule stated in Finding #5 is clear, and Petitioner is not relieved of the obligation to pay the health benefits premiums.

            The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $987.16 from Petitioner’s salary.

 

 

 

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1]  This Notice was not titled “Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets,” but it included the Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities that is required to accompany a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  Therefore, Petitioner was properly apprised of her rights and this debt collection action was properly initiated.