In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
ROGELIO L. SOBREMESANA                                 )
P. O. Box 6223                                                       )
                                                                               )
at                                                                            )
                                                                               )
Torrance, CA 90504-0223                                     )     P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-50

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Rogelio L. Sobremesana
                                                                               P. O. Box 6223
                                                                              Torrance, CA 90504-0223

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                       Dan Castrellon
                                                                              Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                              United States Postal Service
                                                                              2300 Redondo Avenue
                                                                              Long Beach, CA 90809-9401

DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Petitioner, Rogelio Sobremesana, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated January 27, 1999. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $1,468.86 from Petitioner’s salary to recover for a shortage in his account, discovered by an audit on January 31, 1998.

Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Petitioner had appealed this case through the grievance/arbitration procedure, and that an arbitrator held a hearing and issued a decision denying the grievance.

Petitioner replied to the motion, stating that he was not able to be present at the arbitration hearing because he was on leave, and therefore, "did not get an opportunity to defend my case." He also cited several security violations, arguing that management had failed to follow Postal Service procedures and policies.

1. An audit of Petitioner’s account was conducted on January 27, 1998, and the account was found to be $1,468.86 short. Petitioner was not present during that audit, but on his return to work on January 31, 1998, he counted the stamp stock again and also found the account to be $1,468.86 short.

2. A Letter of Demand for $1,468.86 was issued to Petitioner on February 6, 1998. Petitioner filed a grievance under labor/management grievance/arbitration procedures. The union argued that this letter was defective, because it did not properly advise Petitioner of his repayment options.

3. The letter was rescinded on February 26, 1998, and a new Letter of Demand for $1,468.86 was issued on March 6, 1998.

4. A new grievance was filed, and the union argued that the second Letter of Demand constituted some sort of "double jeopardy" violation. The case was heard by an Arbitrator on January 6, 1999. The parties stipulated that the audit of Petitioner’s account was done in accordance with prescribed procedures and that the result was as stated above. The only issue addressed by the Arbitrator was the so-called "double jeopardy" argument. On January 7, 1999, the Arbitrator found no merit in this argument, and denied the grievance.

5. By letter, dated January 8, 1999, the Labor Relations Specialist handling the case advised the postmaster that he must initiate salary offset procedures by issuing Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. This included advising Petitioner that he had a right to file a petition under Debt Collection Act procedures.

6. A Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued on January 27, 1999, and Mr. Sobremesana filed his Petition.

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 question presented here is whether Petitioner is still entitled to a Debt Collection Act hearing after he has had an arbitration hearing on a grievance concerning the letter of demand pertaining to the same debt. I think not. There is nothing in the language of the regulation quoted above that leaves room for Petitioner receiving a second hearing regarding this debt. The fact that Petitioner was not present at the arbitration hearing does not make the rule quoted above inapplicable. Whether there might be a case involving some extraordinary set of circumstances that would warrant an exception to this rule need not be decided, for no extraordinary circumstances are presented here. The January 8, 1999 letter from the Labor Relations Specialist to the postmaster, and the subsequent Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets issued to Petitioner, were done in error. That error, however, does not create a right to a Debt Collection Act hearing that does not exist under the ELM.

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge