August 26, 2004

In the Matter of the Petition by

JUDY ANGONE

8017 Wheatfield Drive

at

Frankfort, IL 60423-6821

P.S. Docket No. DCA 04-103

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Judy Angone

8017 Wheatfield Drive

Frankfort, IL  60423-6821

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Brenda Y. Harris

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

6801 West 73rd Street

Bedford Park, IL 60499-9402

DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

            Petitioner, Judy Angone, filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor.  As its Answer to the Petition, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that there is 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 the Petition and the documents attached thereto.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  On July 24, 2003, Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for $8,199.19 for an alleged loss of postal funds contained in a registered pouch for which she was responsible. 

            2.  Petitioner's union filed a grievance on her behalf and the union's request for relief was denied at each step of the grievance process.  The matter was heard by an arbitrator on May 19, 2004, with both parties represented. 

            3.  On May 29, 2004, Arbitrator Barry E. Simon issued an Award denying the grievance, finding that Petitioner had “failed to exercise proper care of Postal funds, resulting in the loss of $8,199.19.”  

            4.  On June 25, 2004, Petitioner was issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, stating the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $8,199.19 from Petitioner’s salary.

DECISION

            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.

            In her reply to the motion, Petitioner quotes from Section 462.22 of the ELM, which begins, “Under the following circumstances, the statutory offset procedures in 452.3, including the right to petition for hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets under the Debt Collection Act apply:”  She cites this as providing her a right to a Debt Collection Act hearing.  However, none of the circumstances listed in that section exist in this case.

            The June 25, 2004 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, which advised Petitioner of her right to file a Petition for a Debt Collection Act hearing, was issued to her in error.  That error, however, does not create a right to a Debt Collection Act hearing that does not exist under the ELM.

            Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Respondent’s motion is granted and the Petition is dismissed.

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge