March 26, 2008
In the Matter of the Petition
by
DWIGHT CHATMON
P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-4
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Charles Scialla
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Ronald V. Zimcosky, Jr.
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION
ACT OF 1982
This case has a convoluted history. Mr. Chatmon filed a Petition on June 11, 2007, complaining that money had been deducted from his pay for an alleged $1,400.00 debt without a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets having been issued, as required by the Debt Collection Act and the Postal Service’s implementing regulations. The Petition asked that the money be returned and that Respondent adhere to the regulatory procedures. The case was docketed as P. S. Docket No. DCA 07-186.
On June 28, 2007, that case was dismissed, based on a Resolution, signed by both parties’ representatives on June 27, 2007. On September 5, 2007, a Finance Manager issued Petitioner a Notice of Debt Determination, alleging the same $1,400.00 debt. The allegation was that Petitioner received a $1,400.00 salary advance that he has not repaid. Petitioner filed a memorandum, complaining that Respondent had violated their agreement by re-initiating collection action.
A telephone conference with the parties was held on December 7, 2007. The parties disagreed as to whether their agreement gave Respondent the right to re-initiate debt collection action, following the procedures set out in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM).
On December 7, 2007, the following was Ordered: (1) If Petitioner has received a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, he shall file a new Petition promptly and a new case will be docketed; (2) Respondent’s representative shall take whatever steps are necessary to stop any further collection action until this matter is resolved.
On January 7, 2008, the current case was docketed, based on Petitioner filing a copy of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated September 24, 2007, which he stated that he received on December 31, 2007.
By Order dated January 9, 2008, the parties were informed that, before Respondent would be required to file an Answer addressing the merits of the alleged debt, we would first resolve the disagreement over whether the re-initiation of debt collection action violated the prior agreement between the parties. Each side was given time to file its argument on this issue, along with sworn witness statements, if necessary.
The Resolution, signed by the parties on June 27, 2007, stated:
“RESOLUTION
The parties agree that this resolution is non-precedent setting and will not be cited or used as a comparison in any other appeal or forum. The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Mr. Chatmon will be reimbursed for any money collected by the Postal Service related to this debt.
This agreement represents a resolution of petition, DCA 07-186, filed under the Debt Collection Act. Further, it is understood that this agreement does not constitute an admission by either party of any violation of federal or state law or regulation or policy.”
In an Order dated February 11, 2008, I agreed with Respondent’s interpretation of the Resolution and ruled that Respondent had properly initiated a new debt collection action. The parties were directed to file documents and information bearing on the merits of the alleged debt and to state whether an oral hearing is desired.
Respondent filed several documents and stated its position that the case could be decided on the written record. Petitioner filed nothing further. In a telephone conference with the parties on March 19, 2008, both parties stated that they have no further evidence or argument to submit and that the case could be decided on the written record. The following findings of fact are base on the entire record.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. In 2004, Petitioner, along with other employees, was involved in a grievance over the employees’ appropriate pay level in November 2003. The grievance was settled and the employees were to receive a pay adjustment. (PS Ex. 21).[1]
2. On January 10, 2005, Petitioner submitted a PS Form 2240, Pay, Leave, or Other Hours Adjustment Request. He requested a pay advance of $1,400.00, stating that the grievance settlement had not yet been paid to him. The request was granted and Petitioner was issued two money orders, one for $400.00 and the other for $1,000.00, on January 10, 2005. (PS Exs. 2 and 28).
3. The grievance settlement pay adjustment was paid to Petitioner in pay period 25 of 2004. (PS Ex. 21).
4. As was noted above, the Postal Service withheld $1,400.00 from Petitioner’s pay in 2007 without first issuing him a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. In accordance with the June 27, 2007 Resolution, the Postal Service reimbursed this money to Petitioner in the form of two money orders issued on August 13, 2007. (PS Ex. 23).
5. The Postal Service has withheld no additional money from Petitioner’s pay to collect the alleged $1,400.00 debt. (PS Ex. 24).
DECISION
In his original Petition, P. S. Docket No. DCA 07-186, the only issue Petitioner raised was that the Postal Service had withheld money without following prescribed procedures. In the current case, the only argument he has made is that the Postal Service violated the Resolution by re-initiating debt collection action. That issue was resolved in Respondent’s favor by the Order of February 11, 2008. Petitioner has presented no evidence, and offered no argument, that he does not owe the $1,400.00.
Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to show that Petitioner received the $1,400.00 salary advance in January 2005 and that he has not repaid the advance. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $1,400.00 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R.
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] References are to the numbered exhibits attached to
Respondent’s filing dated February 25, 2008.