In the Matter of the Petition by

ELLEN M. STODDARD
P.O. Box 404

at

Shaw Island, WA 98286-0404

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 02-278, DCA 02-279 and DCA 02-280

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Ellen M. Stoddard
P.O. Box 404
Shaw Island, WA 98286-0404

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Susan Houser
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
P.O. Box 90204
Seattle, WA 98109-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Ellen M. Stoddard, filed three timely Petitions for Hearing after receiving three Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated May 3, 2002.  These Notices stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold a total of $7,902.16 from Petitioner's salary to recover salary overpayments.

            A hearing was held in Seattle, Washington on June 28, 2002.[1]  The Postal Service presented testimony from Buddy Green, District Manager of Accounting

            Operations, Maureen Oar, District Manager of Post Office Operations, Ken Rickertt, Manager of Injury Compensation, Kathy Grosso, Manager of Personnel Services, and Jeffrey Foster, Manager of Labor Relations.  Petitioner testified in her own behalf and both sides relied on documents filed with the Petitions and the Postal Service Answer.  Petitioner also filed a written post-hearing brief.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.[2]

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is the postmaster at Shaw Island, Washington.  The Shaw Island Post Office is very small, operated by a single employee with assistance from a backup employee known as a Postmaster Relief (PMR).  (Tr. 45).[3]

            2.  In September 2001, Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Oar, placed Petitioner on administrative leave because an investigation into Petitioner's time-card record keeping was ongoing.  At approximately the same time, on or about September 6, 2001, Petitioner suffered a work-related back injury and was unable to work.  (Tr. 38-40; Answer, Tab 5, pp. 14-16).

            3.  An employee on administrative leave draws full pay from the Postal Service and is not charged with annual leave or sick leave (Tr. 10-12, 121-26; Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) §519.1).

            4.  In early December 2001, Ms. Oar held a meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Grosso to review Petitioner's medical condition, the restrictions placed on her by her doctor, and the physical requirements of her job.  Ms. Oar determined that Petitioner would not be able to resume her duties as postmaster.  She told Petitioner that her administrative leave would be terminated and that she had the option of taking annual leave, sick leave, going into a leave without pay (LWOP) status, or filing a workers' compensation claim with the Department of Labor.  (Tr. 44-48, 91-94, 102-06).

            5.  When an employee is unable to work because of a job-related injury the employee, rather than using annual leave or sick leave, may request compensation from the Department of Labor, Officer of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP).  The employee fills out a Form CA-7 with all pertinent information and submits it through appropriate Postal Service channels to the OWCP.  (Tr. 62-63, 91-94).

            6.  Petitioner submitted Forms CA-7 on December 10, 2001, January 30, 2002, and February 8, 2002.  These covered her absence from December 10, 2001 through February 8, 2002.  (Tr. 64; Answer, Tab 5, pp. 14, 21 and 23).

            7.  The OWCP approved Petitioner's application for benefits and paid her a net $2,777.25 for December 10-31, 2001; a net $3,859.77 for January 2-February 1, 2002; and a net $785.19 for February 2-8, 2002.  These payments totaled $7,422.21.  (Tr. 56-62, 80; Answer, Tab 5, pp. 4, 5, and 7).

            8.  Because of the way in which Petitioner processed the claim forms, the Postal Service continued to pay her during the same time she was drawing compensation from the OWCP.[4]  When Ms. Oar learned that Petitioner was receiving both her Postal Service pay and injury compensation from OWCP, Ms. Oar initiated paperwork to correct this error.  (Tr. 67-73, 94-97, 115). 

            9.  The Form used to correct a pay error is a PS Form 2240, Pay, Leave, or Other Hours Adjustment Request.  Ms. Oar completed and submitted nine of the Forms to the Accounting Service Center on February 19, 2002, one form for each week of the period during which Petitioner was double paid, i.e., December 8, 2001 through February 8, 2002.  (Tr. 9-28; Answer, Tab 5, pp. 29-37).

            10.  On March 27, 2002, Petitioner was issued three invoices from the Accounting Service Center.  The first, for $2,804.83, covered the second week of pay period 26 of 2001 (December 8-14, 2001), and both weeks of pay period 1 of 2002 (December 15-28, 2001).  The second, for $3,434.89, covered both weeks of pay periods 2 and 3 of 2002 (December 29, 2001 - January 25, 2002).  The third, for $1,662.44, covered both weeks of pay period 4 of 2002 (January 26 - February 8, 2002).  During these pay periods, Petitioner had been carried on Postal Service records as being on administrative leave, annual leave, or sick leave.  Based on the Form 2240s, noted in Finding #9, Petitioner's status was changed to leave without pay for the entire period.  (Tr. 9-27; invoices attached to Petitions).

            11.  The total of the three invoices is $7,902.16.  The amount of net pay Petitioner actually received from the Postal Service during this period was $7,854.98.  The difference of $47.18 is a result of Federal income tax withholding and a change in the rate of health benefit premiums.  (Tr. 75-77; Answer, Tab 5, pp. 38 and 47).

DECISION

            Petitioner does not dispute the fact that she was double paid for the time in question, nor does she dispute the dollar figures presented by Respondent.  Her contention is that she was able and willing to return to her job but that Ms. Oar did not want her to return.  Therefore, because she contends that Ms. Oar improperly forced her to remain absent from work, she was entitled to be kept on administrative leave and paid by the Postal Service.  Petitioner's position is that she is willing to repay the money paid to her by the OWCP, which is $479.95 less than the Postal Service is claiming.

            Respondent's position is that an employee has no entitlement to be placed on administrative leave, but that this is management decision.  Once Ms. Oar made the decision that Petitioner was physically unable to perform the duties of postmaster at Shaw Island, Petitioner chose to file a claim with OWCP.  Respondent argues, therefore, that Petitioner cannot now choose whether it is financially to her benefit to repay the OWCP rather than the Postal Service.

            I find Respondent's position to be correct.  It is clear that there are some underlying disputes between Petitioner and her supervisor beyond those that are relevant to this Debt Collection Act action.  I do not find sufficient evidence, however, to support a conclusion that Ms. Oar acted beyond her authority in terminating Petitioner's administrative leave status in December 2001.  Therefore, once the OWCP approved Petitioner's injury compensation claim, she was properly paid by the OWCP and was not entitled to be paid by the Postal Service.

            The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $7,902.16 from Petitioner's salary.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston
                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker telephone from Arlington, Virginia.  Petitioner also participated via telephone from her home in Shaw Island, Washington.  All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.

[2] It is noted from the hearing transcript that the court reporter did not begin recording until the first witness was called.  This omitted some opening remarks by the Hearing Official, including the fact that the hearing was being conducted by speakerphone, the introduction of the Postal Service representative and very brief opening statements from the parties.  I find no possibility of prejudice to either side from this brief omission. 

[3]  References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._."  References to documents attached to the Postal Service Answer will be "Answer, Tab _."

[4]  For purposes of this Debt Collection Act case, it is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner was in any way culpable in causing the double payment.