November 7, 2007           

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                  

                                                                                                                                  

CHARLES CARROLL                                                           

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-229

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Charles Carroll, NALC Branch President

                                                                       

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

Janice E. Lang                                             

Manager, Labor Relations                          

United States Postal Service

                                                                       

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            The issue presented here is whether Petitioner has waived his right to a Debt Collection Act hearing by failing to file a timely, completed Petition after being issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  The Petition in this case, received here on July 26, 2007, was incomplete in several respects.  The Petition was not signed by Petitioner or a representative.  Petitioner did not state his basis for contesting the alleged debt, did not list any witnesses or evidence that he intended to produce, and did not state whether he wanted an oral or written hearing.  An Order dated August 1, 2007, gave Petitioner an opportunity to complete his Petition by filing the required information by August 13, 2007. 

2.  The August 1, 2007 Order also raised a question as to whether the single letter accompanying the Petition was a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  The Order further noted that, until that Notice is issued, the Postal Service may not collect a debt by offset from an employee’s pay, and the employee is not entitled to a Debt Collection Act hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 961. 

3.  Petitioner received the August 1 Order on August 4, 2007.  He did not reply, and filed no further information.

4.  On August 22, 2007, the case was dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to file sufficient information to complete his Petition as directed.

            5.  On August 23, 2007, after the Dismissal was issued, we received a motion to dismiss from Respondent.  Respondent pointed out that Petitioner had not filed a completed Petition as directed, and also argued that the letter dated July 19, 2007, that Petitioner received from the Natick, Massachusetts Postmaster, did meet all the requirements of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets even though not labeled as such.  Therefore, Respondent argued, the Postal Service was free to collect the debt.

            6.  Petitioner then filed a letter asking that the dismissal be overturned, and that we make a ruling that the Postal Service has not issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

            7.  Because the dismissal was issued, based on failure to file a completed Petition, before Respondent made its argument that a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets had been issued, Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to that argument.  By Order dated September 11, 2007, Petitioner was directed to present argument as to why the July 19, 2007 letter should not be treated as meeting all the requirements of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.            

8.  The September 11 Order further stated that, if the July 19 letter was deemed to be a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, Petitioner would be found to have waived his right to a Debt Collection Act hearing by failing to file a timely, completed Petition unless he could demonstrate good cause for the delay.  Therefore, Petitioner was also directed to file any facts and argument that would support a finding that late filing should be excused.  39 C.F.R. §961.10(a) and (c).[1]

9.  The July 19, 2007 letter, issued to Petitioner by the Natick, Massachusetts Postmaster, did not contain the heading, Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  However, the letter followed the format for a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets prescribed in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), Exhibit 452.322, and contained all the information required by ELM Section 452.322.

10.  The July 19, 2007 letter included, as enclosures, a Statement of Debtors Rights and Responsibilities and the Rules of Procedure Governing Hearings Under the Debt Collection Act.  These documents inform recipients of their right to file a Petition for Hearing and of the procedures for doing so.

DECISION

In his reply to the September 11 Order, Petitioner made no argument that late filing should be excused, but did argue that the July 19, 2007 letter did not meet the requirements of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  In a supplemental filing, he also briefly addressed the merits of the alleged debt, and argued that the debt should be waived.

Respondent’s representative replied to Petitioner’s arguments, contending that the July 19 letter met all the requirements of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets and that the Petitioner has been provided full due process under the Debt Collection Act and Postal Service implementing regulations.

The only defect in the July 19 letter is that it was not labeled “Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.”  The fact that Petitioner filed his petition, albeit almost totally incomplete, within the fifteen-day time limit after receiving the July 19 letter/Notice suggests that he was aware of his rights and responsibilities and was not misled by the fact that the Notice was not properly labeled.

I find that the July 19, 2007 letter issued to Petitioner does constitute a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  Petitioner has not offered any explanation for not complying with the August 1 Order to provide sufficient information to complete his Petition.  Therefore, in accordance with our Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §961.10(c), Petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to further proceedings.  Respondent may collect $257.10 in accordance with the July 19, 2007 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.    

 

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1]  The parties were further advised that if the July 19 letter was found not to constitute a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, the Dismissal would be upheld, but the Postal Service would not be permitted to withhold money involuntarily and Petitioner would retain his right to file a new Petition if the Postal Service issued a Notice in the future.