July 13, 2006

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

MARK V. MILLER

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 06-76

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Mark V. Miller

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Robert McCoy

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Mark Miller, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his supervisor, dated April 20, 2006.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $188.04 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a salary overpayment.[1]

Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions.  The parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Both parties did so.  Respondent’s submission included three sworn declarations from witnesses.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is a rural mail carrier and, during the time pertinent to this case, was also a union steward for the National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA).  (Petition; Answer to Petition).

            2.  Postal Service Handbook F-21, Time and Attendance, provides for rural carriers performing steward duties to be granted a paid day off when they have accumulated 8 hours of steward duties.  This is also explained in a Steward Training Manual.  A day off earned in this manner is called a “Z” day.  (PS Exs. 1 and 9; Spradlin Declaration; Curry Declaration).

            3.  The Handbook states that a local record is kept to track a steward’s accumulated time, and the Training Manual states that the steward shall record the time on a PS Form 4240, Rural Carrier Trip Report.  (PS Exs. 1 and 9).

            4.  Petitioner began working at Southeast Station in Oklahoma City on January 10, 2004.  Before that he worked at Santa Fe Station in Oklahoma City.  (Spradlin Declaration; Long Declaration).

5.  On January 29, 2004, Petitioner submitted a PS Form 3971, requesting two “Z” days on February 6 and 7, 2004.  The request was never signed by a supervisor, but Petitioner took the two days off and was paid for those days.  He told his supervisor that he had accumulated enough “Z” time to earn the two days and that his previous office had a record of the time.  (Long Declaration; PS Exs. 3 (p.2), 4 and 5).

            6.  The last time before February 6, 2004 that Petitioner used a “Z” day was November 28, 2003.  The available PS Forms 4240 for the period in question do not show any significant amount of time that Petitioner had performed steward duties that might be used toward earning another “Z” day.  (Long Declaration; PS Ex. 3).

            7.  On July 28, 2004, Petitioner’s supervisor issued him a letter stating that Petitioner owed the Postal Service $188.02, along with an invoice in that amount describing the overpayment as being for the two “Z” days on February 6-7, 2004.  (PS Exs. 6 and 7).

            8.  On April 20, 2006, Petitioner was issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  (PS Ex. 8).

DECISION

            Respondent’s contention is simply that there is no documentation to show that Petitioner earned the two “Z” days that he was paid for.  Therefore, Respondent contends that Petitioner must return the pay that he received for those days.

            Petitioner argues that there is no requirement to document steward time in any specific manner and that “front line” managers, who approved his “Z” days in February 2004, are in the best position to make the determination as to whether the days were earned.  He argues that the system works best based on trust between people who know each other and work with each other on a daily basis, and complains that front line management was overruled by a higher level in this case.  He also states that he did document his steward duties, although not on any specific PS forms.

            The difficulty with Petitioner’s argument is that he did not produce any documents to contradict what Respondent’s records show or to establish that he had earned the “Z” days.  Further, he did not present any supporting statements from the front line management that he refers to.  On the other hand, Respondent presented sworn declarations from two former supervisors that do not support Petitioner’s position, but directly contradict it.

            Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to establish that Petitioner was not entitled to be paid for February 6 and 7, 2004.  The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $188.02 from Petitioner’s salary.

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1] Other documents show the alleged overpayment to be $188.02.  There is no explanation for the difference, but $188.02 is accepted as correct.