P.S. Docket No. DCA 15-78


September 14, 2015

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

BRIDGET A. CROSS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 15-78

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Bridget Cross, pro se

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
John Tutt
Labor Relations Specialist 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982 

Respondent, United States Postal Service, sought to collect from Petitioner, Bridget Cross, a debt in the amount of $388.54 based upon an overpayment of salary.[1]  Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing on March 30, 2015, after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated March 19, 2015.  The following findings are based upon the written record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. At all relevant times, Petitioner was employed by Respondent.
  2. On December 23, 2014, Petitioner submitted a Request for Notification of Absence (PS Form 3971) requesting 3 hours of leave without pay (LWOP)(Resp. Exh. 1).[2]
  3. On December 26, 2014, Petitioner submitted a PS Form 3971 requesting 4 hours of LWOP (Resp. Exh. 2).
  4. Petitioner was paid in pay period 26/2014 for the 3 hours of LWOP she requested on December 23, 2014, and the 4 hours of LWOP she requested on December 26, 2014, which Petitioner did not work (Pet. Exh. 5)
  5. On January 14, 2015, Petitioner submitted a PS Form 3971 requesting 8 hours of LWOP and/or annual leave for that day (Resp. Exh. 3).
  6. The January 14, 2015 PS Form 3971 was ambiguous as to Petitioner’s request given that both annual leave and LWOP were checked by Petitioner (Resp. Exh. 3).[3]
  7. Petitioner did not report for work on January 14, 2015 (Petitioner’s Supplement to Petition docketed July 17, 2015).
  8. Petitioner and her supervisor met to discuss the PS Form 3971 sometime after January 14, 2015, and based upon that discussion, Petitioner’s supervisor changed Petitioner’s payroll records to reflect 8 hours LWOP (Pet. Exh. 7A).[4]
  9. Petitioner was paid in pay period 3/2015 for 8 hours of work on January 14, 2015, which Petitioner did not work (Pet. Exh. 14).
  10. The total salary for the 15 hours of LWOP that Petitioner was paid is $388.54.[5]
  11. The Petition was timely filed.

DECISION

In a Debt Collection Act case, the Postal Service carries the burden of establishing that a debt exists.  Bruch v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-362 (June 17, 2015).  The obligation to meet that burden in a salary overpayment case requires the Postal Service to produce sufficient evidence that Petitioner owes the debt, and that the amount the Postal Service seeks to collect is an accurate calculation of the debt alleged.  Id.  In this case, the Postal Service did present sufficient evidence to establish that it overpaid Respondent in pay period 26 of 2014 for 7 hours (Finding 4) and in pay period 3 of 2015 for 8 hours (Finding 9) in the total amount of $388.54 (Finding 10).

Petitioner presents several grievances regarding her supervisor’s handling of Petitioner’s timekeeping and payroll during the relevant time.  Petitioner supervisor’s performance is not before me, nor is it relevant to the matter I must decide.  What is before me is only whether Petitioner was paid in error on the three occasions set forth above.

Petitioner states that she requested on December 23, 2014, and again on December 26, 2014, 3 hours of LWOP/OWCP and 4 hours of LWOP/OWCP, respectively (Resp. Exhs. 1 and 2).  Petitioner argues that the LWOP entered into the system is improperly coded.  Regardless of how the LWOP is coded in the payroll system, Petitioner was not entitled to receive payment from Respondent for the hours represented by the LWOP.  As discussed in our telephone conferences, that overpayment of salary is the only issue I need decide in this case.[6]  As the overpayment is clear, I find that Respondent has met its burden and is entitled to judgment in its favor.

ORDER

The Petition is DENIED. 

The Postal Service may collect the debt of $388.54 by administrative salary offset not to exceed $50 per pay period until the debt is satisfied.[7]

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge 

 

[1] Respondent initially sought a debt in the amount of $419.82 alleging 16 hours of salary overpayment.  During the proceedings, Respondent acknowledged that the debt amount was in error, and reduced the debt to $388.54 to reflect an overpayment of 15 hours.

[2] References to exhibits are abbreviated as “Resp. Exh.” and “Pet. Exh.”

[3] Petitioner was offered the opportunity to revise her PS Form 3971 to reflect her actual request and declined to do so (Respondent’s Answer, page 2).

[4] Petitioner submitted two different documents marked as Exhibit 7.  This reference is to the PS Form 2240 dated January 23, 2015 that I marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit 7A.

[5] Petitioner did not dispute Respondent’s calculation of the debt amount.

[6] To the extent that an issue remains regarding the coding of Petitioner’s leave, Petitioner must raise that issue with Respondent’s payroll department.  The improper coding, if any, is not relevant to the issues before me.

[7] Petitioner contends that she is financially struggling, and while she did not submit evidence to support that contention, based upon my prior discussions with Petitioner in telephone conferences, I find that she has orally presented sufficient evidence of financial hardship, and I exercise my discretion to reduce the amount Respondent may collect on the debt to $50 per pay period.