In the Matter of the Petition by

VICTORIA BINGHAM
          at
Kings Mountain, NC

P.S. Docket No. DCA 09-465

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Humphrey S. Cummings, Esq.
The Cummings Law Firm, P.A.

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Billy Cobb
Acting Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

           Petitioner, Victoria Bingham, filed a Petition for Hearing on July 6, 2009.  Respondent, United States Postal Service, sought to collect from Petitioner a debt in the amount of $597.05 based upon an alleged overpayment of salary.  A hearing was held in Charlotte, North Carolina on November 24, 2009.[1]  The following findings are based upon the record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

           1. Prior to June 2008, Petitioner was a Rural Route Carrier in Kings Mountain, North Carolina, who was serving in a modified clerk’s position (Tr., p. 31).[2]

           2. On June 18, 2008, a Settlement Order was issued by an Administrative Judge for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a case involving Petitioner. The Order incorporated a settlement reached by the parties on May 29, 2008, and provided that Petitioner “would be placed in a 204B supervisory job in the Stanley, North Carolina post office as an acting supervisor of customer service, and that that would take place as soon as practicable[.]” The Order also stated that the position “would entail a salary at the level of that job for the period of 90 days[.]” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8).

           3. Payment records reflect that Petitioner was first placed into a Level 15 supervisory position on July 19, 2008 (Respondent’s Exhibit 6).

           4. On or about September 27, 2008, Petitioner was placed into a Level 17 supervisory position (Respondent’s Exhibit 6).

           5. The decision to place Petitioner in the Level 17 supervisory position was made by the Postmaster at the Stanley Post Office, who testified that she assumed that Level 17 was the appropriate pay level for the supervisory position because when she held the same supervisory position she was paid at Level 17 (Tr., pp. 57-58).

            6. On June 16, 2009, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating its intent to collect $597.05 by offset from Petitioner’s salary (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1).

            7. The Debt Collection Act Petition was timely filed.

DECISION

           Respondent seeks to collect $597.05 from Petitioner for an alleged overpayment of salary.  Respondent contends that Petitioner was not entitled to receive compensation at the Level 17 pay grade for the supervisory position she held pursuant to the EEOC Settlement Order.  Respondent also contends that Petitioner was subject to a thirty day waiting period under Article 25 of the applicable collective bargaining agreement before proceeding to the higher pay grade and thus was overpaid for that period (Respondent’s Exhibits 5, 6).  Under the Debt Collection Act, the initial burden lies with Respondent to establish that a debt exists for which Petitioner may be held liable. 

           The EEOC Settlement Order does not specify the pay grade level that Petitioner was to assume pursuant to her supervisory duties.  The Order only states that it “would entail a salary at the level of that job[.]”  Respondent did not argue that Petitioner was not entitled to supervisory level pay for the entire period in which she held the acting supervisory position.  Respondent’s only contention is that the level was too high, and that a thirty day waiting period applied prior to Petitioner’s advancement to the higher grade.  Nothing in the record supports the position that the pay level accorded to Petitioner was incorrect.  To the contrary, the testimony of the Stanley Postmaster supported the Level 17 pay grade for Petitioner as consistent with the position when the Postmaster held it (Finding 5). 

           As for the thirty day period that Respondent contends applied to Petitioner before she could advance to the supervisory pay grade, that provision of the collective bargaining agreement was likely superseded by the EEOC Settlement Order that Petitioner advance to the supervisory position “as soon as practicable.”  However, I need not decide that specific issue, because even if such a waiting period applied to Petitioner in this instance, Petitioner did not advance to the supervisory pay level until July 19, 2008 (Finding 3), which was more than thirty days from the date of the EEOC Settlement Order, and nearly seven weeks from the date of settlement.  Thus, any applicable thirty day period was satisfied by the delay in Respondent’s implementation of the settlement under the EEOC Settlement Order.

           Respondent has failed to establish that an overpayment of salary occurred.  Accordingly, Respondent has not met its initial burden that a debt exists for which Petitioner is liable.

CONCLUSION

           The Petition is allowed.  Respondent may not collect the debt by administrative offset. 

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1] The undersigned Administrative Law Judge presided via speaker telephone from the Judicial Officer Courtroom in Arlington, Virginia.

[2] Citations to the hearing transcript and page number appear as “Tr., p.__.”