In the Matter of the Petition by

JOHN H. LAWHON
12500 Tree Line Drive, Apt. A

at

Austin, TX 78729-5428

P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-289

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Larry Roberts
P.O. Box 140225
Austin, TX 78714-0225

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jewell D. Miller-Hamilton
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
1 Post Office Drive
San Antonio, TX 78284-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, John Lawhon, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on April 26, 2002.  This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $281.54 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment.

            A hearing was held in Austin, Texas on July 10, 2002.[1]  The Postal Service presented testimony from Roger Voisine, an accounting/payroll specialist.  Petitioner testified in his own behalf and both parties relied on documents filed with the Postal Service Answer.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner has worked for the Postal Service for approximately eleven years.  He is currently a window clerk in Austin, Texas.  (Tr. 30-31).[2]

            2.  The pay schedule for most bargaining unit employees in the Postal Service includes several "steps" in each pay grade, based on time in grade.  When an employee is promoted to a higher grade, the waiting period to reach the next step begins anew.  Because of the delay in reaching the next step, it is sometimes possible for an employee who has been promoted to actually make less money for a period of time than if that employee had not been promoted.  This is known as a promotion pay anomaly.  (Tr. 8-9; Answer, Ex. 5).

            3.  In accordance with settlement agreements with the various postal unions, employees affected by the pay anomaly described above are paid lump sum payments to make up any lost salary.  (Tr. 8-9; Answer, Ex. 5).

            4.  In pay period 20 of 1999, Petitioner was paid a net payment of $389.02 for a pay anomaly that covered pay periods 12 through 19 of 1999.  (Tr. 9-10, 18-24; Answer, Ex. 1 and Ex. 3).[3]

            5.  In pay period 2 of 2000, Petitioner was paid a second pay anomaly net payment of $275.93 for pay periods 14 through 19 of 1999.  This payment was an error, the cause of which is not known.  (Tr. 10, 24-26; Answer, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3).

            6.  On July 6, 2000, Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for $281.54 to recover the erroneous payment made in pay period 2 of 2000.  The difference between this amount and the net $275.93 that Petitioner received is due to deductions taken, and payments made, by the Postal Service on behalf of the employee that cannot be recouped.  There is nothing in the record to show what those deductions were in this case.  (Tr. 25-26, 28; Answer, Ex. 6).

            7.  On April 26, 2002, Petitioner was issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for $281.54.

DECISION

            Petitioner's argument that pay anomalies are very complicated and that he should not be expected to understand how they are calculated and remedied is misplaced.  It is not necessary to fully understand pay anomalies to resolve this case.  The documentary evidence and the testimony of Mr. Voisine are sufficient to show that Petitioner was paid twice for the same period of work, i.e., pay periods 14 through 19 of 1999.  Petitioner has presented nothing to demonstrate a reason why he is entitled to keep that double payment.

            Respondent has not satisfactorily explained, however, why the overpayment is $281.54 rather than the net payment of $275.93 that Petitioner actually received at the time of the erroneous payment in pay period 2 of 2000.  The explanation given by Mr. Voisine may very well be correct (see Finding #6), but without an explanation of precisely how $281.54 was calculated, I find that Respondent has proved a debt of only $275.93.  Respondent may collect that amount 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.  All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.

     [2]  References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._."  References to the tabbed documents attached to Respondent's Answer will be "Answer, Ex._."

     [3] There is no evidence in the record to show what caused the pay anomaly in Petitioner's case, but it is not essential to have that information.  It is enough to know that the Postal Service concluded that Petitioner had been underpaid for pay periods 12-19 of 1999, and that the payment was made to him in pay period 20 of 1999.