In the Matter of the Petition by

EDWARD MCWILLIAMS
18 Ellen Drive

at

Bellmawr, NJ 08031-2726

P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-53

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Charles Scialla
453 Preakness Avenue, #5
Paterson, NJ 07502-1121

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Theresa Hensel
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
P.O. Box 9001
Bellmawr, NJ 08099-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            In a July 3, 2001 Final Decision Under the Debt Collection Act of 1982 in Edward McWilliams, P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-454 (“Decision”), it was determined that Petitioner was liable to repay certain salary overpayments he received while detailed as an Officer-in-Charge (“OIC”) at two post offices in New Jersey.  As the equivalent of a postmaster, an OIC is paid the higher-level postmaster salary based on a 40-hour workweek even if the OIC spends more than 40 hours managing the post office.  As a supervisor, Petitioner had been paid for all hours he worked—often many more than 40—and after his detail to an OIC position, he was erroneously paid for all hours he worked while an OIC, which far exceeded 40 per week.  Respondent demanded repayment of the amounts paid Petitioner in excess of his entitlement as an OIC.

            Petitioner challenged collection of the alleged overpayments, and the Decision concluded that under the circumstances, Petitioner was entitled to be paid at level E16 for Saturdays—his day off at the Willingboro Post Office where he was the OIC—he worked as the level 16 supervisor at the Mt. Laurel Post Office.  Therefore, for the time he was the Willingboro OIC, he was entitled to be paid for 40 hours at the E21 level for his OIC work at Willingboro and to be paid at the E16 level for Saturday supervisory work at the Mt. Laurel Post Office.  This approach did not apply when he subsequently became the OIC in Mt. Laurel and continued working in Mt. Laurel on Saturdays, because his work on Saturdays then was considered part of his OIC duties in the same post office.

            The exact amount of overpayment could not be determined based on the record in DCA 00-454, and the matter was remanded to the parties to negotiate the amount of overpayment that Petitioner would repay.  After exchanging information and calculations, however, they have been unable to agree, and they have requested that this office issue a decision based on their submissions.  This request for a decision was docketed as P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-53.  In a telephone conference on January 29, 2002, both parties confirmed that they had submitted all information in support of their positions and had nothing further in the way of evidence or argument to submit.  Accordingly, DCA 02-53 was considered submitted for decision.

            Respondent submitted two tables reflecting alternative calculations of what it understood the July 3 Decision to require.  With some modifications, to be discussed below, Respondent’s table set forth in Tab 2 of its submission has been found to reflect the adjustments called for in the July 3, 2001 decision in Edward McWilliams, P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-454.[1]  In that table, Respondent breaks down by week the hours at each level that Petitioner was paid for and the total amount of his actual pay while he was an OIC, including after he became the OIC in Mt. Laurel.  The table also calculates the pay to which he was entitled for each week, allowing 40 hours at the E21 level and payment at the E16 level for the actual hours Petitioner worked on Saturdays.[2]  The table reflects the number of hours he worked on each of the Saturdays in question,[3] and concludes that Petitioner was overpaid $5,422.73.[4] 

            A few adjustments to this figure are in order.  Petitioner was not the OIC for week one of pay period 22-98 (Finding 6 of the Decision).  Accordingly, he was entitled to be paid and was paid at E16 for all hours worked.  Respondent’s calculation in the table of an overpayment of $205.92 for that week is in error.  The “Everything Time Report” (DCA 00-454, Respondent’s Exhibit B) reflects Petitioner worked for eight hours on January 16, 1999 (PP 03-99, week 1) yet Respondent gave him credit for only six hours.  Allowing the full eight hours worked reduces the overpayment for that week to 0, compared to the claimed overpayment of $41.58 in Respondent’s table.  The entry in the table for February 6, 1999 (PP 04-99, week 2), reflects that Petitioner is entitled to payment for seven hours, but the calculation fails to reflect credit for this time.  Including the seven hours at level E16 reduces the overpayment for that week to 0, compared to Respondent’s calculation of a $145.54 overpayment.  Reducing Respondent’s calculated figure ($4,910.08, see note 4) by these three amounts leaves $4,517.04 as the amount of gross overpayment.[5]

            Petitioner accepts Respondent’s calculations of the overpayments after he assumed the OIC position in Mt. Laurel, after deletion of the last week in the calculation (see note 4), but he contends that he is entitled to be paid for all hours before that point and objects to offset of claimed overpayments occurring earlier.  He concludes that the total overpayment was $1,978.71.  However, Respondent has demonstrated that there were overpayments during the period Petitioner was the OIC in Willingboro, even after giving Petitioner credit at level E16 for the Saturdays he worked as a supervisor in Mt. Laurel, as required by the Decision.  As was pointed out in the Decision, as an OIC, Petitioner was not entitled to be paid for hours in excess of 8 per day or 40 per week that he might have worked at Willingboro.  The only exception in the Decision was for the Saturday supervisory work in Mt. Laurel, which was plainly separable from his OIC duties in Willingboro.  Thus, except for those Saturdays, Petitioner was not entitled to be paid more than the E21 salary for 40 hours notwithstanding additional hours he may have worked in Willingboro or on route inspections.   Petitioner’s calculation ignores these overpayments occurring before he became the Mt. Laurel OIC, and his calculation is rejected.

            Accordingly, the amount of the overpayment for which Petitioner is liable is $4,517.04.  This is a gross figure, and the net overpayment that Respondent may collect by involuntary withholdings from Petitioner’s salary will be the net salary based on the above gross total.

                                                                                    Norman D. Menegat
                                                                                    Administrative Judge

[1] The second table Respondent submitted (Tab 3) gave Petitioner credit for the Saturdays worked while he was the OIC at Willingboro plus refigured his pay based on paying him for all hours worked at pay level 16 when he claimed work at two levels during a week.  This approach was not fully explained and is not consistent with the decision in DCA 00-454.  Accordingly, this second table was not used in reaching this decision.

[2] All of the pay figures discussed are gross salary figures.  The parties have agreed that once a gross figure is determined, making the appropriate deductions to reflect a net amount of the overpayment to be recovered will be a simple matter to accomplish.

[3] In Respondent’s calculation, it allowed payment at the E16 level for more Saturdays than the 22 identified in Finding 10 of the Decision.  For purposes of establishing the amount of the overpayment, we will accept Respondent’s credit, assuming that it has confirmed that Petitioner in fact worked as a supervisor on those Saturdays even though there was insufficient evidence in DCA 00-454 to make that determination.

[4] After completing this calculation, Respondent determined that the final week included in the table in Tab 2 should not have been included because Petitioner was no longer an OIC and therefore was entitled to E16 pay for all the hours he worked.  Accordingly, the amount claimed using the Tab 2 table calculations was reduced to $4,910.08.

[5] In the table, Respondent identified seven weeks as “Previously Credited” and included an overpayment amount that was different from what would have been calculated had the procedures of the other weeks been followed.  Although the “Previously Credited” characterization is not explained, overall it works to Petitioner’s advantage, and Respondent’s figures are accepted.