P.S. Docket No. AWG 24-3

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service is seeking to collect a debt from Ms. Lynch by administrative wage garnishment. The debt is based on 392 hours of Emergency Federal Employee Leave (EFEL) and 8 hours of holiday pay Ms. Lynch was paid between March and June 2021. Ms. Lynch, however, failed to provide the required documents supporting her leave request, and the Postal Service converted those hours to Leave Without Pay. After receiving an invoice in August 2021 for the monetary value of those hours, Ms. Lynch challenged the debt through her union’s grievance process. 
Even though Ms. Lynch resigned from the Postal Service in November 2022, the grievance process continued. The matter was eventually referred to an arbitrator for resolution. After a hearing, the arbitrator decided in March 2023 that Ms. Lynch could not use EFEL for the disputed hours. The arbitrator therefore determined that Ms. Lynch owed the Postal Service $6,848.85, the cash value of the hours.
After the arbitrator issued a decision, the Postal Service referred the matter to the Department of the Treasury for collection. In September 2023, the Treasury Department issued a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings. After the Treasury Department added collection fees, the debt totaled $8,903.51. In response to that Notice, Ms. Lynch challenged the debt and asked for a hearing. The matter was then referred to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings.
On March 8, 2024, I convened a telephone conference with the parties. After discussing the procedural history and status of the petition, I notified the parties that I intended to decide the petition based on the existing record. Neither party objected.

DECISION

Before the Treasury Department garnishes wages to collect a non-tax debt from a former Federal employee, it sends the former employee a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings. That notice advises the former employee of their right to a hearing to challenge the debt. But there is a caveat to that right. If the former employee has already had a hearing on the alleged debt, they will not be provided with another hearing. As the Treasury Department’s regulations provide, the Postal Service does not have to duplicate administrative proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations. 31 C.F.R. § 285.11(b)(6).   
Here, when the Postal Service invoiced Ms. Lynch for the debt underlying this case, she chose to challenge the debt through her union’s grievance process under a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute proceeded through that process, ending with a hearing. At the hearing, Ms. Lynch was represented by a union official, and both parties were allowed to call and cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and make legal arguments. After the hearing, the arbitrator ruled that Ms. Lynch could not use EFEL for the hours.
Because Ms. Lynch had a hearing to address the merits of her arguments, she is not entitled to another hearing before the Judicial Officer Department on that same issue. Cf., Employee and Labor Relations Manual § 462.34 (explaining that a postal employee is not entitled to a hearing on the merits of a claim under the Debt Collection Act if an arbitrator opens a hearing on the merits of a grievance).

ORDER

The petition is denied. The Postal Service and the Treasury Department may collect the debt underlying this petition by administrative wage garnishment.