In the Matter of the Petition by

DORIS SIMMONS
278 Hollow Springs Dr.

at

Hiram, GA 30141-5818

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 03-84 & DCA 03-85

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Sheila A. Hunter
National Napus Postmaster Representative
Post Office Box 232
Everett, PA  15537-0232

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Sandra D. Duncan
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
Post Office Box 599353
North Metro, GA  30026-9353

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Doris Simmons, requested hearings under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  Those Notices stated the Postal Service’s intention to make involuntary deductions from Petitioner’s salary to recover alleged salary overpayments occurring in the post office at which she was the postmaster.

            Petitioner elected to submit the cases on the written record without an oral hearing, and the cases were consolidated.  The parties supplemented the record and submitted written arguments.  The following findings of fact are based on the documents and witness statements submitted.^[1]

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  During 2001 and 2002, Petitioner was the postmaster of the Concord, Georgia Post Office (Declaration of Mary Sikes (“Sikes Decl.”); Petitioner’s Declaration).

            2.  As postmaster, Petitioner was responsible for preparation and maintenance of the time cards representing hours she worked and those worked by her postmaster relief (“PMR”).  The PMR worked in three other post offices as well as Concord, but it was Petitioner’s responsibility to record all of the hours the PMR worked, based on information from the other offices.  (Sikes Decl.).

            3.  Section 113.11a of the F-21 Handbook, Time and Attendance, provides,

“The postmaster . . . is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the entries on a time card; ensuring that the time and attendance data are totaled correctly and properly dispatched at week’s end; . . .”

            4.  At Petitioner’s manager’s request, the Manager, Time and Attendance Collection System Operations, reviewed the time cards for the Concord Post Office for pay periods 1-24, 2002, and compared them to the work hours reported by the Concord Post Office and for which Petitioner and the PMR were paid during that period (Sikes Decl.; Respondent’s Answers, Exhibit 1).

            5.  The review disclosed a number of deficiencies in Petitioner’s maintenance of the time cards.  Petitioner had used whiteout to correct errors on the time cards, a prohibited practice.  The hours reported for pay purposes from the time cards were apparently estimated rather than totaled exactly because there were many discrepancies between the number of hours shown on the time cards and the hours reported for pay.  (Sikes Decl.). 

            6.  Over the period reviewed, Petitioner had been erroneously paid for 6.25 hours more than she actually worked, for an overpayment of $140.82 (Sikes Decl; Respondent’s Answer in DCA 03-84, Exhibit 1).

            7.  Also, the Manager, Time and Attendance Collection System Operations, concluded that over the period reviewed, the PMR had been overpaid by $412.20 (Sikes Decl.; Respondent’s Answer in DCA 03-85, Exhibit 1).

            8.  Respondent issued Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner, and she filed Petitions challenging Respondent’s intended collections.  The Petition challenging collection of the alleged overpayment to her was docketed as DCA 03-84, and that challenging collection of the alleged overpayment to the PMR was docketed as DCA 03-85.

DECISION

            Respondent argues that Petitioner, as the postmaster, was responsible for the accuracy of the time cards in the Concord Post Office.  Therefore, according to Respondent, when inaccuracies result in erroneous overpayments, the postmaster is responsible for repaying the overpayments.  Respondent argues that the PMR is currently in a non-pay status and that collection from her for the overpayment she received is impossible so Petitioner should be found liable for its repayment.

            Petitioner argues that she has repeatedly requested access to the original time cards to verify Respondent’s claims of errors but access has been denied by management.  As a result, according to Petitioner, the results of the time card audit are unreliable and should not be accepted as demonstrating overpayment to Petitioner and the PMR.  However, in a March 14, 2003 telephone conference, Petitioner’s representative was specifically directed by the Hearing Official to make any requests for documents to Respondent’s representative (Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference dated March 14, 2003).  There is no evidence that she requested access to the original time cards in this proceeding, and there is no basis at this time for drawing any inferences from the alleged unavailability of the original time cards.

            Respondent has demonstrated that Petitioner was overpaid by $140.82 (Finding 6).  Respondent is entitled to recover salary overpayments made to an employee, see Jill Jacquin, P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-371 (January 27, 1997), and, accordingly, Respondent may recover that amount.

            However, assuming that the PMR also was overpaid, Respondent has not shown a basis for holding Petitioner responsible for repayment of such overpayment.  While the postmaster is responsible for the accuracy of the time cards, the F-21 Handbook provision establishing that responsibility (Finding 3) does not also establish that the postmaster is personally, financially responsible for any salary overpayments resulting from inaccurate time cards.  Respondent pointed to no other basis for holding Petitioner personally responsible for a salary overpayment to the PMR.  There is no evidence that Petitioner intentionally caused the PMR to be overpaid.  Additionally, if the PMR received a salary overpayment, she would be liable for its repayment.  That the PMR is in a non-pay status does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that any overpayment could not be collected from her, and Respondent has not shown what efforts, if any, it made to collect from the recipient of the alleged overpayment.

            The Petition in P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-84 is denied.  Respondent may collect $140.82 from Petitioner’s salary through involuntary deductions.  The Petition in P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-85 is granted.  Respondent may not collect the alleged overpayment to the PMR from Petitioner’s salary.

Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge

[1]  Respondent submitted additional documents after the date set for submission of evidence and argument.  Petitioner objected to their admission.  No reliance has been placed on those documents in reaching this Decision.