March 13, 2018

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

ADENA C. DAVIS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 16-276

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Adena C. Davis

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Ceylon Davenport
Manager, Labor Relations

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service seeks to collect a debt from Adena C. Davis based on retroactive benefit payments and an alleged salary overpayment.  The Postal Service, which has the burden of proof, has failed to prove the debt.  Accordingly, the Petition is granted, and the Postal Service may not collect the assessed debt by involuntary administrative salary offset.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Davis began working for the Postal Service in 2012 as a Rural Carrier Associate (“RCA”) at the Severn, Maryland Post Office.  As an RCA, Ms. Davis was not eligible for benefits.  (Petition at 1).
2. On January 23, 2016, Ms. Davis was the successful bidder for a Part Time Flexible (“PTF”) position (Petition at 1, 9).  Although she was the successful bidder in January 2016, Ms. Davis continued to work as an RCA until May 2016.  Only then did she begin working as a PTF.  (Petition at 1).  As a PTF, Ms. Davis became eligible for benefits as a career employee, although her salary was $2 an hour less than it had been as an RCA (Petition at 1; Petition at 12, Step 1 Grievance Form).
3. On May 24, 2016, the Postal Service issued an SF-50 Notification of Personnel Action (Form 50).  The Form 50 stated that Ms. Davis’s appointment as a PTF was retroactive to January 23, 2016.  (Petition at 9).
4. Ms. Davis worked as a PTF for approximately three weeks before successfully bidding for a rural carrier position, which she started on June 11, 2016 (Petition at 10).
5. On June 20, 2016, Ms. Davis received a Letter of Demand for Indebtedness for Employee for a debt of $475.52 for a “PAYROLL RELATED DEBT” (Petition at 15).
6. On October 24, 2016, Respondent issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (the “Notice”) to Ms. Davis.  The Notice stated it was for a “PAYROLL RELATED DEBT” and referenced an August 24, 2016 Letter of Debt Determination, in which Ms. Davis was assessed a $1,409.33 debt.  (Petition at 3).  The Letter of Debt Determination is not included in the record and the two different debt amounts are not explained.
7. On September 8, 2016, Ms. Davis’s union initiated a grievance process (May 19, 2017 Employer Response; see also Petition at 12-14).  In the grievance, Ms. Davis’s union and the Postal Service reached a settlement at Step 3, which included an alternate payment schedule for repayment of $1,409.33.  (May 19, 2017 Employer Response; Step 3 Settlement Adena Davis).
8. On November 8, 2016, Ms. Davis filed a Petition pursuant to the Debt Collection Act challenging the debt sought to be collected, as well as $475.52 already withheld from her pay.¹

DECISION

When the Postal Service seeks to recover an overpayment, it bears the initial burden to prove that (1) it made the overpayment, (2) it properly calculated the amount of the debt, and (3) the employee was not entitled to the overpayment.  See Skadsberg v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-198, 14-200, 2014 WL 12767841 (September 16, 2014).
The Postal Service argues that because Ms. Davis’s appointment as a PTF was retroactive to January 23, 2016, she was improperly paid $2 an hour above the RCA pay scale from January 23 to May 24, 2016.  The Postal Service also argues that as a PTF, Ms. Davis was entitled to benefits and is therefore liable for missed retirement fund and Thrift Savings Plan payments the Postal Service made on her behalf.  Finally, the Postal Service argues that the grievance settlement agreement, which included a provision that she repay $1,409.33, is binding on Ms. Davis.  (May 19, 2017 Employer Response).
As to the salary overpayment, the Postal Service admits that Ms. Davis continued to work as an RCA for at least four months after successfully bidding for the PTF position (see June 22, 2017 Statement of Facts - Non-Contested²).  Because she actually worked as an RCA from January to May 2016, Ms. Davis is entitled to the higher hourly salary for that position.  Moreover, even if the retroactive effect of the Form 50 negated Ms. Davis’s right to the higher hourly salary, the Postal Service would still have to prove the amount of the debt by showing how many hours Ms. Davis worked from January to May 2016.  Here, it has failed to do so.  Having thus failed to prove either the existence or the amount of the debt, the Postal Service may not collect any part of the debt related to a salary overpayment.
As for the debt for retirement and Thrift Savings Plan payments, the Postal Service did not prove that it either actually made these payments on behalf of Ms. Davis or the amount of the payments.  The record is silent on these two vital pieces of information.  As such, the Postal Service has not met its burden of proof.  See McCrary v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-269, 2017 WL 5516580 (August 9, 2017).
The Postal Service failed to meet its initial burden.  It has not presented sufficient evidence to prove (1) that Ms. Davis’s appointment actually started on January 23, 2016, despite the Form 50 not being issued until May 24, 2016; (2) what her actual hours were during the relevant time period to calculate a possible salary overpayment; and (3) evidence of how the debt related to benefits was calculated.
The Postal Service’s reliance on the grievance settlement agreement also is not persuasive.  Ms. Davis was not a party to the agreement, did not participate in the negotiations, and did not sign the final settlement.  While the agreement may resolve the grievance between the union and the Postal Service, it is not binding on an employee in a proceeding under the Debt Collection Act.  See Patricia Mitchell, DCA 11-205 et al., 2011 WL 13238590 (December 15, 2011); Employee and Labor Relations Manual § 462.34.

ORDER

The Petition is granted.  The Postal Service may not collect $1,409.33 from Ms. Davis by involuntary administrative salary offset.

Diane M. Mego
Administrative Judge