In the Matter of the Petition by

MICHAEL MAGLIANO

P.S. Docket No. DCA 06-53

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Sheila Hunter

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Michael Fuechtmann
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Michael Magliano, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving an invoice stating that he was liable to the Postal Service for payment of $7,823.98, based on his negligence in a personnel matter.  Thereafter, the Postal Service issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, stating an intention to withhold money from Petitioner’s salary to collect the alleged debt.^[1]

            Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions.  The parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Neither party filed anything further, even though an Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference dated May 17, 2006 advised the parties that they should submit sworn statements from witnesses who had knowledge of relevant facts and could explain pertinent documents.  Petitioner’s reply to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss does include a sworn declaration from Petitioner.  The following findings of fact are based on the information filed with the Petition, the Answer, and with Petitioner’s reply to the Motion to Dismiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  At all times pertinent to this case, Petitioner was the postmaster in Lincolnshire, Illinois.

            2.  In August 2005, based on matters unrelated to this case, the Manager of Post Office Operations, Petitioner’s immediate supervisor, issued a Notice of Proposed Removal to an employee in Petitioner’s office.  A subsequent Letter of Decision upheld the removal, with an effective date of October 29, 2005.

            3.  At the time of the Letter of Decision, the employee was on administrative leave and remained in that status, continuing to be paid, until December 16, 2005.  The employee was paid $7,823.98 for the period October 29 - December 16, 2005.

            4.  In early February 2006, action was initiated to collect back the overpayment from the removed employee.

            5.  The removed employee brought an action against the Postal Service before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to challenge his removal.  On or before February 9, 2006, the parties settled the MSPB action.  One of the provisions of the settlement stated that the employee’s “removal, effective October 29, 2005, shall be changed to a resignation for personal reasons effective December 16, 2005.”  As a result, the collection action was terminated. 

            6.  On February 23, 2006, the same Manager of Post Office Operations issued Petitioner a Letter of Warning as a disciplinary action, based on Petitioner’s failure to take timely steps to process the employee’s removal and stop his pay.

            7.  On April 6, 2006, the District Finance Manager issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  That Notice, a March 14, 2006 invoice for $7,823.98, and a Letter of Demand from the Manager of Post Office Operations, dated April 24, 2006, all refer to Petitioner’s negligence as causing the Postal Service to lose the $7,823.98 paid to the removed employee after the effective date of his removal.

DECISION

            Clearly, there are factual disputes over how much Petitioner knew about the action to remove the employee and what instructions Petitioner was given as to any procedural steps he was required take.  Petitioner has stated his version of the facts in a sworn declaration.  Respondent has countered with nothing other than the letters cited above.  Filing a copy of a Letter of Demand and an invoice, for example, may prove that the letter and the invoice were issued.  If contradicted, as they are here by Petitioner’s declaration, they do not necessarily prove the factual assertions contained therein.  Therefore, even assuming that a postmaster might, under some circumstances, be held liable for the type of loss alleged here, Respondent’s evidence falls far short of proving that Petitioner was negligent in causing the employee to be paid after October 29, 2005.

            In addition, once the Postal Service entered into the settlement with the removed employee, allowing the employee to keep the money he was paid after October 29, 2005, there is some doubt about whether this is really a “loss” that the Postal Service is entitled to recover.  Some of Respondent’s documents imply that Petitioner should not have made the employee aware that collection action was going to be initiated against the employee, and that the employee’s attorney somehow used this in negotiating the settlement of the MSPB action.  If this is intended to be another instance of negligence that constitutes a basis for Petitioner’s liability, Respondent’s evidence does not demonstrate that Petitioner was negligent, nor does it make any connection to the settlement.

            The Petition is granted.  Respondent may not collect $7,823.98 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  With the Answer to the Petition, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Petition was premature because no Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets had been issued.  By that time, the Notice, and also a Letter of Demand, had been issued.  Therefore, even though the order of events here was not as prescribed in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), the case was allowed to proceed.