March 8, 2018

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

LYNN F. DRAGOMAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 16-205 and DCA 16-206

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Lynn F. Dragoman

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Marlon J. Vera
Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner Lynn Dragoman timely filed a petition under the Debt Collection Act challenging the Postal Service’s assessment of a $234.54 debt for health benefit premiums (DCA 16-205), and a $2,687.14 debt for a salary overpayment (DCA 16-206). The dispute over the health benefit premiums has been settled.  As to the salary overpayment, the Postal Service has met its burden of proof for part of the debt.  Accordingly, DCA 16-206 is granted in part and denied in part.  The Postal Service may collect $645.12.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Dragoman worked for the Postal Service at the Forestville Post Office in Forestville, California, at all times relevant to this dispute (Exhs. 6, 8).
2. On November 5, 2014, Mr. Dragoman was injured at work (Tr. 11; Exh. 7).  The record is not clear on when, if at all, Mr. Dragoman worked between the date of his injury and December 5, 2014.  But as of December 5, 2014, Mr. Dragoman did not work for approximately the next 11 months (Tr. 11; Exh. 8).
3. In pay periods 4–6 in 2015 (running from January 24 through March 6), the Postal Service originally entered the following pay codes for Mr. Dragoman:
   PP 4 – Week 1 (Jan 24 – Jan 30)
   Annual leave               8 hours
   Sick leave                   8 hours
   LWOP                     32 hours
   PP4 – Week 2 (Jan 31 – Feb 6)
   LWOP                    48 hours
   PP5 – Week 1 (Feb 7 – Feb 13)
   Annual leave          40 hours
   Saturday off             8 hours
   PP5 – Week 2 (Feb 14 – Feb 20)
   Annual leave          32 hours
   Holiday                    8 hours
   Saturday off             8 hours
   PP6 – Week 1 (Feb 21 – Feb 27)
   Other hours           48 hours
   PP6 – Week 2 (Feb 28 – Mar 6
   Other hours           48 hours
   (Exh. 6).
4. Mr. Dragoman received his regular salary for the 208 hours coded as annual leave, sick leave, holiday, Saturday off, and other hours.  He did not receive any salary for the 80 hours coded as LWOP.  (Tr. 32–36, 39–46).
5. Mr. Dragoman began receiving workers’ compensation payments from the Department of Labor on February 28, 2015, which was week 2 in pay period 6
   (Exh. 23).
6. In December 2015, the Postal Service converted Mr. Dragoman’s hours in pay periods 4–6 to 200 hours of unpaid OWCP and 8 hours of continuation of pay
   (Exh. 6).
7. In January 2016, the Postal Service sent Mr. Dragoman an invoice for $2,687.14 based on an alleged salary overpayment in pay periods 4–6 in 2015 (Exh. 41).
8. On August 8, 2016, the Postal Service issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets under the Debt Collection Act asserting its right to collect the $2,687.14 debt (Exh. 2).  Mr. Dragoman then timely filed a petition under the Debt Collection Act challenging the debt.

DECISION

To recover salary overpayments from an employee under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service must prove that it made the salary overpayments, the amount of those payments, and that the employee is not entitled to keep the payments.  Moore v. United States Postal Service, AO 14-284, 2015 WL 13647621 (I.D. January 26, 2015); Skadsberg v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-198 and 14-200, 2014 WL 12767841 (September 16, 2014).  If the Postal Service meets that initial burden, the burden shifts to the employee to prove an excuse or explanation sufficient to relieve the debt.  Eudy v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-225, 2017 WL 5516572 (August 9, 2017).  As explained below, except for the second week in pay period 6 in 2015, the Postal Service has failed to meet its burden of proof.
The Postal Service’s case rests on a simple, undisputed proposition: an employee cannot be paid twice for the same work by both the Postal Service and the Department of Labor.  E.g., Beverly Jones, DCA 12-29, 2012 WL 13034258 (July 13, 2012); Clarence Taylor, DCA 10-153, 2011 WL 13238564 (January 19, 2011).  Applying that principle to this case, the Postal Service argues that Mr. Dragoman was paid twice during most of pay periods 4–6 in 2015.
The Postal Service is correct that it paid Mr. Dragoman his regular salary for 208 hours during pay periods 4–6 (Finding 5).  As to an alleged second payment covering that same time period, the Postal Service argues that Mr. Dragoman also received payments from the Department of Labor in pay periods 4­–6 (Tr. 94).  Except for the second week of pay period 6, however, the Postal Service has not proved that Mr. Dragoman received any double payments during those pay periods.  Thus, except for that week, the Postal Service has not met its burden to prove that Mr. Dragoman was paid twice for the same hours.
As for the second week of pay period 6, the Postal Service has proved that Mr. Dragoman received his regular salary for 48 hours that week (Findings 3–4).  The record also establishes that Mr. Dragoman received workers’ compensation from the Department of Labor during that week (Finding 5).  Thus, for that week, the Postal Service has proved that Mr. Dragoman was paid twice for the same hours, and he must repay the salary he received from the Postal Service for those hours.
The record does not include a clear statement of Mr. Dragoman’s hourly rate, but the Postal Service’s invoice provides the information necessary to determine an hourly rate.  The Postal Service’s invoice sought to collect $2,687.14 for 25 days, or 200 hours. Dividing the amount sought by the 200 hours yields an hourly rate of $13.44 per hour.  Applying that rate to the 48 hours of double payment yields a debt of $645.12.
As a general defense to the debt, Mr. Dragoman argues that the Postal Service did not meet its burden of proof by either (1) identifying the exact dates of the overpayments, or (2) describing the dates and amounts of money he received from the Department of Labor.  As to both these arguments, Mr. Dragoman is generally—but not entirely—correct.
The Postal Service could not, despite repeated requests from both Mr. Dragoman and me, before and during the hearing, identify the dates of the overpayments.  Nonetheless, the Postal Service’s January 2016 invoice did state that the overpayments occurred during pay periods 4–6 in 2015.  The payroll journals then provided detailed information explaining when, during those pay periods, Mr. Dragoman received his regular salary and when he was on LWOP.  And most importantly to the outcome, the payroll journals do prove that Mr. Dragoman received his regular salary during the last week of pay period 6.
As to any payments by the Department of Labor, the Postal Service could only prove that Mr. Dragoman started receiving OWCP on February 28, 2015.  The Postal Service’s failure to prove any earlier payments led to the conclusion, stated above, that it had not met its burden of proof regarding double payments in pay periods 4–5 and the first week of pay period 6.
Finally, the parties spent considerable time at the hearing discussing when Mr. Dragoman started receiving continuation of pay following his injury in November 2014.  Ultimately, however, that fact is not relevant to the issues involved in this Petition.  There is thus no need to draw any conclusions on when Mr. Dragoman received continuation of pay.

ORDER

The Petition in DCA 16-205 is dismissed based on the parties’ settlement.  The Petition in DCA 16-206 is granted in part and denied in part.  The Postal Service may collect $645.12 from Mr. Dragoman by involuntary administrative salary offset.

Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge