In the Matter of the Petition by

BENITA ELDER

P.S. Docket No. DCA 06-33

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Benita Elder

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Barbara Ramsey
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Benita Elder, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated February 7, 2006, from her postmaster.  This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $497.38 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment in 2001.

            A hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina.^[1]   The Postal Service presented testimony from a payroll supervisor.  Petitioner testified on her own behalf and both parties relied on documents that had previously been filed.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  At the beginning of 2001, Petitioner was working 36 hours per week (six days).  On April 21, 2001, in accordance with her physician’s instruction, her hours were reduced to 30 hours per week (five days).  (Tr. 8-9; Petition; PS Exs. 9-11).^[2]

            2.  This change amounted to Petitioner having two days off per week, rather than one.  For a few weeks, however, this change was not correctly entered into the payroll system and Petitioner was charged annual leave for the second day off.  As any employee would be, she was paid her normal salary for those days of leave.  (Tr. 9-15, 21-22; PS Ex. 17).

            3.  In early 2004, Petitioner, through her union, raised a pay and leave issue when she noticed that her pay stubs showed a reduction in the number of hours of accrued leave greater than the amounts of leave she believed she had taken.  This resulted in a payroll manager researching Petitioner’s pay record and discovering the error discussed above.  Payroll adjustments were done to collect back the pay Petitioner had received for the days she was not scheduled to be working and to restore the leave hours she had been charged for those days.  (Tr. 7-11; PS. Ex. 17).

            4.  When an error of this nature is discovered, payroll officials are required to collect back the pay and restore the improperly charged leave.  An employee does not have the option to keep the overpayment and give up the leave.  (Tr. 35-36).

            5.  The issue that Petitioner’s union raised arises from the fact that employees are credited with their full amount of annual leave at the beginning of a calendar year, based on the number of hours they are expected to work.  In this case, because the error discussed above was not fully uncovered and corrected until 2004, it appears that Petitioner may have been credited with too much leave for years between 2001 and 2004.  Payroll officials are still working on this issue to determine whether the matter has been accurately corrected by the subtraction of some leave hours.  Although related to the same error that caused the overpayment that is alleged in this case, this leave issue is a separate matter and does not affect the $497.38 overpayment that is the subject of this case.  (Tr. 17-28; PS Ex. 1).

            6.  The total number of hours of leave for which Petitioner was improperly charged and paid for was approximately 27.  In calculating the amount of the debt, the United States Postal Service Accounting Center re-calculated Petitioner’s pay for 2001, including deductions, to arrive at the figure $497.38.  (Tr. 9, 19-20; PS Ex. 2; PS Ex. 17, pp. 83-85).

DECISION

            Respondent argues that the record demonstrates that, for a brief period in 2001, Petitioner was paid as if she was working a 36-hour week when she was really working only 30 hours per week.  Respondent also points out that, once the overpayment is collected back, the amount of leave that was improperly charged to Petitioner will be restored to her.  Because she will then be able to use that leave while in a pay status, there is no real loss of money to Petitioner.

            Petitioner’s concern throughout this case has primarily been with the leave hours that have been subtracted from her annual leave account, more so than with the $497.38 debt.  As is discussed in Finding #5, this is an issue that must be resolved, but it is separate from the alleged debt.  Petitioner also argues that she should have the option of giving up the leave rather than having to repay the overpayment.  The payroll supervisor’s testimony that an employee does not have that option is persuasive, however.

            Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to establish that Petitioner was overpaid in the amount alleged.  Respondent may collect $497.38 from Petitioner’s salary.  The hours of leave improperly charged to Petitioner in 2001 will then be restored to her.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker telephone from Arlington, VA.  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 documents attached to Respondent's Answer and in a supplement to the Answer are "PS Ex._."