GovernmentExecutive.com

The Postal Service was wrong to subtract union dues from back pay granted to a driver the agency improperly fired, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled recently.

The Postal Service fired Harry Samuels in May 1999 for allegedly threatening his boss. An administrative law judge later reduced Samuels' penalty to a 60-day suspension because the Postal Service lacked evidence to substantiate some claims against him. The judge ordered the agency to give Samuels back pay, but he disputed the amount he received.

Eventually, the Postal Service granted Samuels $29,000 of the additional back pay he requested. But he filed another appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing that the Postal Service owed him still more, because it improperly subtracted union dues and health insurance premiums from his back pay.

In a Sept. 26 ruling, the MSPB decided that as of the day the Postal Service fired Samuels, he was not responsible for paying union dues. Upon returning to work, he never told the agency he wished to pay dues for the time he was absent, the board reasoned.

The board ordered the Postal Service to calculate the union dues subtracted from Samuels' back pay and reimburse him for that sum. However, the Postal Service was right to subtract health insurance premiums from Samuels' back pay since he was still covered by the policy even during the period when he was not working, the board ruled.

Harry J. Samuels v. U.S. Postal Service, Merit Systems Protection Board (DE-0752-99-0260-C-1), Sept. 26, 2003

Flyer Beware

An examiner at the National Credit Union Administration's Seattle, Wash., office decided to stay in Alexandria, Va., for an extra night at the end of weeklong training session, because he did not want to fly back to the west coast the Friday the session ended.

NCUA refused to reimburse John Corrigan, the examiner, for hotel expenses incurred that night. The agency reasoned that since the training session ended at noon on Friday, Corrigan had ample time to fly back to Seattle that day.

But Corrigan argued that, had he traveled on that night, he would have effectively worked a 15- or 16-hour day. He also noted that he could have returned home on a direct flight from Dulles International Airport on Friday, but thought that airport was "not pleasant" and preferred to depart from Reagan National Airport.

In an Oct. 3 decision, the Board of Contract Appeals sided with NCUA, noting that Corrigan had plenty of flight options from Reagan Airport on the afternoon the training ended. "It would have been practical for [Corrigan] to take one of those flights," the board said. "The fact [that he] did not desire to travel that day was a matter of his personal convenience."

Corrigan's supervisor had also warned him that the agency would not pay for the extra night, the board noted.

NCUA also refused to cover some of Corrigan's travel expenses for a separate trip to a conference in Orlando, Fla.

On that trip, Corrigan decided to stay in Florida for more than a week after the conference, and returned to Seattle on a flight departing from Fort Lauderdale rather than Orlando. NCUA reimbursed Corrigan for travel costs related to the conference, but refused to compensate him for nearly $140 in expenses incurred because of his decision to leave from Fort Lauderdale.

Corrigan claimed he had saved the government money by leaving from Fort Lauderdale on a discounted plane ticket and therefore deserved the full reimbursement he requested.

But again, the Board of Contract Appeals sided with NCUA, ruling that "employees are to be reimbursed only for necessary and reasonable expenses essential to the transaction of government business." The Fort Lauderdale trip was not work-related.

John L. Corrigan v. National Credit Union Administration, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (16170-TRAV), Oct. 3, 2003

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.