ROGER A. STULTZ

P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-225

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Roger A. Stultz

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
R. Elaine Smith

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Roger Stultz, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated July 1, 2008, from a Finance Manager.  This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $444.09 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment.

            A hearing was held in Indianapolis, Indiana on September 25, 2008.[1]   The Postal Service presented testimony from a customer service analyst with expertise in data related to rural delivery routes.  Petitioner testified in his own behalf.  Both parties relied on documents that had previously been filed, and Petitioner submitted two additional documents at the hearing.  The parties elected to submit written arguments after receiving the transcript of the hearing.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is a full time rural mail carrier.  The salary of a rural carrier is determined, in part, by the number of hours per week at which that carrier’s route is evaluated.  This weekly evaluation can change from time to time as postal managers do periodic re-evaluations of rural routes, but the carrier is paid based on the evaluated rate, not on how many hours the carrier actually spends performing the route.  (Tr. 8-9).[2]

            2.  On or about September 2, 2006, Petitioner moved from a rural route at the Clermont Branch Post Office in Indianapolis to a rural route at the Southport Branch Post Office in Indianapolis.  The PS Form 50 that was prepared to record this personnel action contained an entry showing that Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Code A applied to Petitioner.  Code A means that a carrier would be paid the straight hourly rate for the first 40 hours worked per week, and overtime pay for anything over 40 hours.  This was an erroneous entry.  The entry should have been Code B, which means that a carrier would be paid at the evaluated rate for the route (see Finding #1).  At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner’s Southport route was evaluated at 43 hours per week.  (Tr. 9, 13, 18, 24, 45; PS Ex. 1).

            3.  Postal Service records show that Petitioner worked 43.26 hours in week one of pay period 19 of 2006, and 54.25 hours in week two.  As a result of the error noted above, he was paid for 3.26 hours of overtime in week one and 14.25 hours of overtime in week two.  The net amount of the overtime pay was $444.09.  (Tr. 10; PS Exs. 3-5).

            4.  The error was caught and corrected quickly.  In pay period 20 of 2006, Petitioner was paid correctly, based on the 43 hours per week route evaluation.  (Tr. 11, 24-25, 39; PS Exs. 4 and 7).

            5.  When a rural carrier works an extra day in any week, i.e., works on his normal day off, there are options as to how he will be compensated.  The carrier can (1) exchange the day for another day of the carrier’s choosing, with no extra pay (Code R), (2) take another day chosen by management and receive 50% of a day’s pay (Code 3), or (3) be paid 150% of a day’s pay, but get no day off at a later date (Code 5).  (Tr. 13-14; 54-55; PS Ex. 6).

            6.  Petitioner worked an extra day in week two of pay period 19 in 2006, for which the record from Respondent’s timekeeping system shows a Code R.  Because of Petitioner’s move from one location to another just prior to this pay period, he was not eligible for Code 5.  (Tr. 10-12, 14, 16, 54; PS Ex. 7).

DECISION

            Respondent’s position is simply that an administrative error caused Petitioner to be paid for the actual hours he worked in pay period 19 of 2006, rather than at the evaluated rate for his route.  As for the extra day that Petitioner worked in week two of pay period 19, Respondent contends that Petitioner received another day off under Code R and was not entitled to additional pay.

           Petitioner does not dispute the fact that there was an erroneous entry in his personnel record (see Finding #2), and does not argue that he was entitled to be  paid according to hours worked in pay period 19 of 2006, rather than according to his route evaluation.  However, he contends that he was entitled to extra pay for working on his off day in week two of pay period 19.  He cannot recall exactly what the arrangement was when he agreed to substitute for another carrier and faults the Postal Service for not retaining the records that would have reflected which of the options described in Finding #5 he was entitled to.[3]  He insists that he would not have agreed to work on an off day without getting additional pay, and believes his manager at the time approved additional pay despite the apparent rule making him ineligible for Code 5.

            The record supports Respondent’s position.  There is no doubt that, because of the administrative error, Petitioner’s pay for pay period 19 of 2006 was calculated incorrectly.  Petitioner’s argument that he may have nevertheless been entitled to some additional pay on some other basis is not supported by any evidence.  It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the PS Form 4240 that Petitioner seeks is not available, but it would be speculative to conclude that it would contain something to contradict the records on which the analyst relied or that those records are inaccurate.

            The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $444.09 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, 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 Respondent’s supplemental pre-hearing submission, will be “PS Ex._.”  References to Petitioner’s documents will be “Pet. Ex._.”

[3] Neither party was able to produce a PS Form 4240, Rural Carrier Trip Report, for the days in question, which would have shown the exact hours Petitioner worked each day, along with possible remarks explaining the circumstances.