In the Matter of the Petition by

MICHAEL DiPIPPA
118 Rose Haven Drive

               at

Renfrew, PA 16053-9529

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-294

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Michael DiPippa
118 Rose Haven Drive
Renfrew, PA 16053-9529

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Anthony J. Bernat
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
2709 Legion Road
Erie, PA 16515-9400

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Michael DiPippa, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on August 29, 2001. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $309.89 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment in November 2000.

Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties filed additional material. Respondent's submissions included sworn declarations from Steve Hrip, Customer Services Supervisor at the Butler, Pennsylvania Post Office, Phil Zamierowski, Manager of Accounting Operations for the Erie District, and Linda Moorhead, Manager of Delivery and Customer Services for the Erie District. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner is a rural delivery carrier in Butler, Pennsylvania. His regular assignment during the time in question, pay period 24 of the year 2000, was auxiliary route 11. His pay rate during the time in question was $16.53 per hour. (Moorhead Declaration; Zamierowski Declaration; Answer, Ex. 2 and Ex. 5).

2. Route 11 is evaluated as requiring 39 hours per week to complete. Based on six delivery days, therefore, Petitioner is paid for 6.5 hours each day that he works on route 11. (Moorhead Declaration; Zamierowski Declaration; Answer, Ex. 3).

3. Sometimes Petitioner worked on route 8. Route 8 is evaluated at 44 hours per week. A carrier who works this route is paid for 8.8 hours per day, based on a five-day week. (Hrip Declaration; Zamierowski Declaration; Answer, Ex. 3 and Ex. 4).

4. Petitioner's work and pay records show that during the first week of pay period 24/00 (November 4-10, 2000), he worked one day on route 8 and five days on route 11. During the second week of pay period 24/00 (November 11-17, 2000), he worked one day on route 8 and four days on route 11. He was paid $145.46 for each of the days he worked route 8. This was the correct amount (8.8 x $16.53 = $145.46). (Hrip Declaration; Zamierowski Declaration; Answer, Ex. 4 and Ex. 5).

5. For the days in pay period 24/00 that Petitioner worked route 11, Petitioner was paid as if route 11 was evaluated at 46 hours per week. A carrier who works a 46 hour route is paid for 9.2 hours per day, based on a five-day week. Therefore, for week one of pay period 24/00, Petitioner was paid $760.38 for route 11 (5 days x 9.2 hours x $16.53). For week two of pay period 24/00, Petitioner was paid $608.30 for route 11 (4 days x 9.2 hours x $16.53). (Zamierowski Declaration; Answer, Ex. 4).

6. Petitioner should have been paid $537.23 for his five days on route 11 in week one (5 x 6.5 x $16.53), and $429.78 for his four days on route 11 in week two (4 x 6.5 x $16.53). The total gross pay difference for the two weeks is $401.67. The net pay difference, which Respondent seeks to recover, is $309.89. (Zamierowski Declaration; Answer, Ex. 6).

Although it is unclear why the error was made, the sworn declarations from Respondent's witnesses, along with the work and pay records, satisfactorily demonstrate what Petitioner was paid, and what he should have been paid, for pay period 24/00.

Petitioner seems to argue that his route was evaluated incorrectly, but he has not demonstrated or explained how this is so. He submitted two PS Forms 4241-A, Rural Route Evaluation, for auxiliary route 11, but he did not explain what there is about them that is incorrect. In fact, the second copy, which is labeled "Amended National Count," and which Petitioner asserts to be the correct copy, appears to change the evaluation of route 11 from 46 hours to 39 hours.

Much of Petitioner's complaint in this case is over the length of time it has taken to resolve this matter and the failure of anyone in authority to present him with documentation to show the error. Even assuming some validity to these complaints, they do not provide a basis for relieving Petitioner of the obligation to pay back an overpayment.

Because Respondent has presented sufficient evidence that Petitioner was overpaid in the amount alleged, the Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $309.89 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge