September 4, 2007
In the Matter of the Petition
by
JOYCE W. HALE
P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-179
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Joyce W. Hale
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Constance L. Heine
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
FINAL DECISION
UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Joyce Hale, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her postmaster on May 17, 2007. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $10,243.04 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment.
A hearing was held in Portsmouth, Virginia on August 14, 2007. The Postal Service presented testimony from a supervisor and a payroll specialist. Petitioner
testified on her own behalf and both parties relied on documents that had previously been filed. Petitioner submitted one additional document at the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Petitioner was a rural mail carrier until she was injured on or about October 27, 2000, and was placed on limited duty. (Tr. 7, 38, 44-45).[1]
2. The salary of a rural carrier is determined, in part, by the number of hours per week at which that carrier’s route is evaluated. This evaluation can change from time to time as postal managers do periodic re-evaluations of the weekly workload of each rural route. At the time of her injury, Petitioner’s route was rated at 40 hours per week. (Tr. 11, 13-14; PS Ex. 16, p. 1).
3. In accordance with Postal Service policy, when Petitioner was injured and placed on limited duty, action should have been taken to freeze her pay at the rate based on her route evaluation, 40 hours, in effect on the date of the injury. She would, therefore, retain her salary even though she was in a lower-paying limited duty position rather than performing her rural route. Due to administrative error, this action was not taken. (Tr. 11-13, 29; PS Ex. 4).
4.
Effective November 4, 2000, Petitioner’s
rural route, then being performed by another rural carrier, was re-evaluated
and adjusted to 44 hours. Because action
had not been taken to freeze her pay, Petitioner then began to be paid at
5. At additional times in 2001 and 2002, Petitioner’s route was re-evaluated and the rate varied between 43 and 48 hours. Each time, Petitioner’s pay was adjusted to the new rate. (Tr. 14-17; PS Ex. 16, pp. 3-8).
6. In October 2002, it was determined that Petitioner would not return to her duties as a rural mail carrier and her route was released to be bid on by other rural carriers. At this time, the Postal Service Accounting Center discovered that Petitioner’s salary had not been frozen in October 2000 as it should have been. (Tr. 14, 34).
7. Payroll officials examined Petitioner’s pay record and calculated what her pay should have been versus what she was actually paid for each pay period from pay period 24 of 2000 through pay period 23 of 2002. The total difference in net pay was $10,243.04. (Tr. 27-29; PS Ex. 18).
8. In about January of 2003, Petitioner’s supervisor issued her a Letter of Demand for $10,243.04. Petitioner’s union filed a grievance on her behalf. It is unclear what became of this, but apparently no one followed up to finally resolve the matter. On April 5, 2007, Petitioner’s postmaster issued a new Letter of Demand for $10,243.04, and on May 17, 2007, he issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for the same amount. (Tr. 8; PS Exs. 7, 8, 11, and 12).
DECISION
Respondent’s argument is that the records clearly show that, through administrative error, Petitioner was overpaid as alleged. Further, Respondent‘s position is that the fact that this was not Petitioner’s fault, or that she was not aware of the error at the time, does not relieve her of the obligation to repay money she was not entitled to receive.
Petitioner does not dispute the accuracy of Respondent’s calculations, or that her route evaluation changed as alleged, but contends that, due to Respondent’s long delay in detecting the error and the fact that she was never aware that she was being paid incorrectly, she should not be required to repay the money. Respondent’s evidence, in particular the detailed pay-period by pay-period analysis by Ms. Booth, is sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was overpaid in the amounts alleged from pay period 24 of 2000 through pay period 23 of 2002.
Petitioner is correct, of course, in asserting that someone should have noticed the error earlier, rather than let the overpayments accumulate for two years, but that is not a basis for relief from the debt. Some of Petitioner’s arguments might be relevant in considering a request for waiver of the debt but, as was made clear to the parties early on in this proceeding, a Debt Collection Act Hearing Official plays no role in deciding whether a waiver should be granted.
Respondent’s evidence demonstrates that the alleged debt exists, and Petitioner has not presented a basis for relief. Respondent may collect $10,243.04 from Petitioner’s salary.
Petitioner also contends that the rate of collection proposed in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, i.e., $165 per pay period, would be a financial hardship for her. She presented some evidence to support this and Respondent did not contest it. Therefore, Respondent may collect the debt at the rate of $100 per pay period.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." References to documents filed with Respondent's Answer, and in a supplement to the Answer, will be identified as “PS Ex._.”