September 23, 1988

In the Matter of the Petition By:     

LELOI TUITAMA

2961 Taffrail

at

Oxnard, CA 93035-1680        

P. S. Docket No. DCA-24

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:  

Martin C. Krueger

National Association of Postal Supervisors

P. 0. Box 35

Santa Barbara, CA 93102—0035

APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT: 

Robert P. Sindermann, Jr., Esq.

James A. Friedman, Esq.

Office of Labor Law

United States Postal Service

Washington, DC 20260—1133

FINAL DECISION UNDER DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

By petition filed with the Recorder on July 28, 1988, Leloi Tuitama requested a hearing on a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act issued to him on July 14, 1988, by the Postmaster, Oxnard, CA. A hearing was held in Oxnard, CA on September 8-9, 1988.

The notice advised Petitioner that based on an audit of his accountability for the reserve stamp stock at the Federal Station in Oxnard, CA, he was indebted to the postal Service in the amount of $5,461.34.

In his petition Petitioner objected to the involuntary offsets for two reasons: (1) that four boxes, each containing 50 coils of 100 22-cent stamps (valued at $1,100 each, or a total of $4,400), had erroneously been credited to another employee for a previous shortage at the Saviers Station, rather than to him; (2) a burglary, which occurred in March 1988, resulted in losses of clerk stamp stock and accountable paper, some of which should have been credited against Petitioner’s accountability.

The Postal Service (Respondent) in its answer to the petition denied that Petitioner was entitled to any credits in connection with the two occurrences. During the course of the hearing a determination was made by the Oxnard postmaster to credit Petitioner with an additional $563.58 (Transcript page (Tr.) 161, 292, 382; Pet. Exh. 3). As a result the amount disputed by Petitioner is $4,897.76.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Leloi Tuitama, was a delivery and collection supervisor in Oxnard, CA, during the times involved in the matters of this petition.

2. There are three postal facilities in Oxnard, the Main Post Office, the Saviers Station and the Federal Station. The latter two stations are geographically separated by approximately six miles. No carriers operate out of Federal Station, but both Federal and Saviers Stations have assigned clerks who sell stamps and handle accountable paper.

3.   The record indicates that Petitioner was custodian of, and accountable for, the reserve stamp stock at Federal Station from some time in 1985 through March 1988, except for a period of two weeks or so during 1986, when the custodian was John Kramer (Tr. 280, 310—11, 345, 346; Resp. Exh. 25). On March 21, 1988, the accountability for the reserve stock at Federal Station was transferred to Norman Benjamin, who worked at that station (Tr. 42-43, 293, 327).

4.   During the time Petitioner was custodian of the reserve stock at Federal Station his assigned duty stations were at Saviers Station or the Main Station (Tr. 288-89, 314). Because of the time required to fulfill his supervision of carriers, it was difficult for petitioner to travel to Federal Station to discharge properly his reserve stock custodial duties (Tr. 134-35, 312-16, 360-61, 366, 372). It was much easier to handle the reserve stock at Saviers, his assigned duty station at the time (Tr. 314). On many, if not most, occasions delivery of Federal Station stock would be made to Petitioner at Saviers Station when he was assigned there (Tr. 105, 319, 348, 360, 375). If Petitioner could not make the trip to Federal Station at the time, he would store the Federal Station reserve stock in the safes at Saviers Station or sometimes lock larger items in the trunk of his automobile for later delivery to Federal Station (Tr. 105, 125, 314, 319). At times when Petitioner was unavailable and the clerks at Federal Station needed stock, direct deliveries would be made from the Main Station vault, and Petitioner would later be provided with the paperwork reflecting the transactions (Tr. 314, 366-67). Petitioner’s record keeping for Federal Station was substandard and he was on one occasion criticized by the postmaster for sloppy records (Tr. 315, 316-17)

5. Under the policy and procedures established by the Finance Director of the supervisory Management Sectional Center (MSC), audits of custodians of stamp stock were to be performed at least once per year (Tr. 116, 248, 261, 294; Pet. Exh. 2). It is in the best interests of any person with such accountability to request frequent audits and to assure that an audit is performed at least at yearly intervals (Tr. 96, 248-49, 261-62, 294). Despite the policy, Petitioner’s accountability for the reserve stock at Federal Station was not audited between February 1986 and March 1988 (Tr.310).

6. On February 17, 1986, an audit of Petitioner’s reserve stock at the Federal Station in Oxnard revealed an overage of $5,334.98. This overage was later offset by simultaneous, corresponding shortages in the clerks’ account at Federal Station (Stipulation, Sept. 2, 1988, as revised, Tr. 5-12 (Stip.) ¶ 1). At the time this occurred Petitioner made no objection concerning the offset procedure (Tr. 306), and there is no credible evidence to indicate it was improper in any respect.

7. In May 1986 Venida Ordonez was custodian of the reserve stamp stock at Saviers Station (Stip. ¶ 3; Tr. 286). On May 21, 1986, Ms. Ordonez discovered that 200 coils of stamps worth $22 each (a total value of $4,400) were missing from Saviers Station reserve stock. An audit of the reserve stock at that time revealed a shortage of $4,401.50. (Stip. ¶ 3; Resp. Exhs. 1, 2; Tr. 276).

8.   The coils are normally mounted on a stiff card in groups of 50 rolls of 100 22-cent stamps; the size of each card of 50 is approximately 10 inches wide, 18 inches long and one inch in height (Tr. 51, 106-07).

9. After Ms. Ordonez discovered the loss of the 200 coils, an extensive search of the Saviers Station was made, and Ms. Ordonez along with others repeated her search through the safes for the missing stock (Tr. 138-39, 150-51, 176-77, 279).

10. On May 28, 1986, the accountability for the Saviers Station reserve stock was transferred from Ms. Ordonez to Andy Torres (Resp. Exh. 3; Stip. ¶ 4; Jt. Exh. B). The reserve stock at Saviers Station was later transferred from Mr. Torres to Barbara Tollison, and later transferred from Ms. Tollison to Petitioner (Stip. ¶ 4; Jt. Exh. B; Tr. 322).

11.  After the audit at Saviers Station in May 1986 revealed the shortage, Ms. Ordonez was asked to repay the value of the missing coils, which she subsequently agreed to do, and commenced making partial payments through payroll deductions (Stip. ¶ 5; Resp. Exhs. 4, 5; Tr. 277).

12. Approximately in late 1986 or within the first two months of 1987 Petitioner became the custodian of the reserve stock at Saviers Station, while remaining custodian of the reserve stock at Federal Station. On April 6, 1987, the Saviers Station reserve stock was transferred from petitioner to James Cobb. (Stip. ¶ 6; Resp. Exh. 7; Tr. 90, 320). Thus, for a period of approximately three to five months petitioner was custodian of the reserve stock at both Saviers and Federal Stations (Tr. 288).

13. At the time of the transfer of the accountability for the reserve stock at Saviers to Mr. Cobb, the reserve stock had been stored by previous custodians in three safes, each with several compartments (Tr. 96, 98, 370). Certain areas or compartments in the safes were set aside for storage of the stamp stock issued to the clerks (Tr. 98). When the transfer was made to Mr. Cobb, he immediately ordered a new safe to be used exclusively by him as the custodian of the reserve stock and decided to cease using the three other safes for reserve stock (Tr. 91, 97).

14. On April 21, 1987, Mr. Cobb, while looking for additional storage space for the clerks, found 200 coils of 22-cent stamps in a compartment of one of the safes at Saviers Station (Stip. ¶ 7; Tr. 91-92, 128, 322, 371, 373; Resp. Exh. 8). The coils were discovered in an upper right compartment (designated F) of one of the three safes that had formerly been used by the custodians of the Saviers Station reserve stock (Tr. 92, 100, 129, 141, 373; Jt. Exh. B; Pet. Exh. 1). Petitioner and Kerry Valle, another custodian of the reserve stock at Saviers (who had preceded Venida Ordonez), identified the compartment as one that had been used by custodians of the reserve stock for storage of their reserve stock (Tr. 129, 320, 373-74).

15. Mr. Cobb’s reaction to the discovery was that he was unable to understand how three previous managers of the stock could possibly have failed to discover the 200 coils (Tr. 123-24). Mr. Cobb immediately contacted Petitioner who verified the compartment was used for the reserve stock (Tr. 129, 320, 371). Mr. Cobb requested Petitioner to check his accountability at Federal Station to determine whether or not the 200 coils were Petitioner’s stock that had been overlooked when the transfer was made (Tr. 320).

16. Petitioner’s inventory record for 22-cent coils at Federal Station did not reflect a shortage at that time (Resp. Exh. 25; Tr. 320). Petitioner’s inventory record for 22-cent coils was incomplete and showed instances where question marks appeared in the columns for the quantity received (Resp. Exh. 25; Tr. 241-42). When the audit took place in March 1988 prior to transferring the reserve stock at Federal Station to Norman Benjamin, the number of coils shown in Petitioner’s inventory report differed from the actual amount on hand, a further indication that the record was inaccurate (Tr. 240-41).

17. During the investigation which followed, Petitioner did not claim that the amount represented by the recently-found 200 coils should be credited to his accountability at Federal Station (Tr. 94). Petitioner was under the care of a doctor during that time period and was emotionally distraught and apprehensive that he might be accused of having stolen the coils (Tr. 322-23, 353-54). In his statement to the investigator from the Inspection Service, Petitioner stated he never knew there was a compartment F even though he had the keys to it (Resp. Exh. 10; Tr. 321, 335-36). Although the Inspection Service performed an investigation, no report was available at the hearing or offered into evidence. Petitioner had made requests for that investigative report, but Respondent’s officials had been unable to obtain a copy of it (Tr. 256-59. See also Tr. 79).

18. Following the discovery of the 200 coils, an audit was performed for the Saviers Station which revealed an overage of approximately $4,400 (Tr. 92-93, 305-06; Resp. Exh. 8). No audit was performed of Petitioner’s Federal Station reserve stock at that time.

19. The $4,400 overage a Saviers Station was subsequently credited to Venida Ordonez and her repayments were refunded (Stip. ¶ 7; Resp. Exhs. 11, 12; Tr. 276, 305).

20. Sometime during the weekend of March 12-13, 1989, a break-in and burglary occurred at the Federal Station, and stamp stock was stolen from the drawers maintained by the clerks at that station (Tr. 40, 65). There were no losses from the station vault, which held Petitioner’s reserve stock, and was not breached during the burglary (Stip. ¶ 8; Tr. 42, 66, 80; Resp. Exh. 23).

21. Audits were conducted of the Federal Station reserve stock on March 15 and March 21, 1988, which revealed shortages of $4,900.77 and $6,075.22, respectively (Stip. ¶¶ 9, 10; Resp. Exhs. 15, 16). Audits of the Federal Station clerks’ stock at that time did not reveal any significant overages (Tr. 244; Resp. Exh. 26).

22. Petitioner was subsequently charged with the shortage found in the reserve stock of Federal Station (Stip. ¶ 11; Resp. Exh. 17). Petitioner requested reconsideration of the charge in a letter to the Postmaster, and thereafter met with the Postmaster (Resp. Exh. 19; Tr. 295-98). Although Petitioner in his letter to the Postmaster requesting reconsideration had stated his claim that he was entitled to credit for the 200 lost coils, he did not orally mention it during his conference with the Postmaster, who likewise did not refer to it (Tr. 296-98).

23. Because of a subsequent credit made to Petitioner of

$613.88 for stamp stock discovered in an unused drawer at Federal Station, Petitioner’s liability was reduced from $6,075.22 to $5,461.34, the amount reflected in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets issued to Petitioner (Stip. ¶¶ 11, 14, 15; Resp. Exhs. 17, 20, 21, 22).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Petitioner’s challenge to the involuntary administrative salary offsets for the debt charged to him is based principally on three occurrences which he claims should have resulted in credits to him but did not. Also, allegations of a general nature were aired during the hearing bearing on the issue of his responsibility, viz., the lack of training provided Petitioner, the onerous nature of his other duties which made his reserve stock custodial duties burdensome, and failures of the local administration to follow proper procedures in auditing Petitioner’s accountability at reasonable time intervals.

These general allegations, even if true, will not exonerate Petitioner from responsibility for shortages which are legitimately found to exist concerning the reserve stock for which he was accountable. That Petitioner was not given the proper training is no defense to the charges. It is Petitioner’s responsibility when he is assigned duties involving financial accountability to learn what is necessary and required of him and to perform those duties properly until relieved of them. The allegations that his supervisory duties at the Oxnard Main Post Office and the Saviers Station made it difficult to devote the necessary time to his financial accountability functions at Federal Station, and that his accountability at Federal Station was not audited within the required yearly intervals, similarly constitute no defense to the charges. However, these matters (which may be of a mitigating nature) will be considered in the context of the occurrences which Petitioner claims entitle him to additional credits.

Offset of Reserve Account Overage in February 1986

Petitioner at the hearing, but not in his Petition, claims that it was improper to have offset the overage of $5,334.98, which was found to exist in the reserve account at Federal Station in February 1986, against a simultaneous shortage in the clerks’ accounts at Federal Station. There is a question whether this issue is properly before the hearing official for decision inasmuch as it was not raised in the petition. Nevertheless, assuming jurisdiction exists, the contention is without merit. This occurred shortly after petitioner assumed the reserve stock accountability at Federal Station, and Petitioner made no objection at the time. Petitioner presented no records or other evidence that would indicate the offset was improper.

Federal Station Burglary in March 1988

The evidence is undisputed that the burglary losses which occurred on March 12 or 13, 1988, at the Federal Station were confined to stamp stock in the clerks’ drawers. The vault which held the reserve stock (for which petitioner was accountable) was not breached. To support granting a credit to Petitioner, there must be evidence that reserve stamp stock was included among the stock held by the clerks which was burglarized. No such evidence was presented or is in the record. Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that the reserve stock was in any way affected by the burglary, and no credit is due Petitioner,

Coils ($4,400) Discovered at Saviers in April 1987

The remaining contention of Petitioner concerns the issue of whether he should have received credit for $4,400 based on 200 coils of 22-cent stamps which were found in a compartment of a safe used for storage of the reserve stock at the Saviers Station in April 1987, approximately two weeks after Petitioner transferred the Saviers reserve stock to another custodian. Petitioner claims these coils were part of the reserve stock for the Federal Station which had been placed in the safe at Saviers.

The record supports Petitioner’s contention that he frequently received his deliveries of stock for Federal Station at Saviers where he then was assigned, and that he often stored such stock in the safes at Saviers until a later time when he could travel to Federal Station.

As the findings reflect, the coils were discovered by James Cobb shortly after Petitioner transferred the stock to Mr. Cobb. The coils were found in a compartment of one of the safes that had been previously used by all the prior custodians of the Saviers reserve stock. The compartment was a large compartment in the upper right corner of the safe, and it is highly improbable that three prior custodians of the reserve stock (all of whom had access to that compartment of the safe) would not have discovered the coils. Under Respondent’s theory the coils would have remained there undetected since May 1986, a period of approximately 11 months.

Other than Petitioner, both witnesses who had actually observed the location of the compartment were of the view that because of the obviousness of it (and the physical dimensions of the coils), there was little likelihood that the coils could have been overlooked. Mr. Cobb’s first impression was that it was in all probability part of Petitioner’s stock, and he immediately asked Petitioner to check his records of 22-cent coils received and disbursed at Federal Station.

Petitioner’s records relating to his inventory of 22-cent coils for Federal Station tailed to reflect any shortage. Respondent relies on those records to refute Petitioner’s position, and additionally on Petitioner’s conduct at the time, when he not only raised no issue of credit to himself, but appeared to deny any connection with the coils. The record establishes that Petitioner’s records were inaccurate and incomplete as is evident on their face and also from the fact that when an audit was finally performed in March 1988, they were unbalanced. Also, the physical condition and undue apprehension of Petitioner during that time period affected his judgment and ability to protect his financial position.

In view of the circumstances, an audit of Petitioner’s Federal Reserve stock (which under the guidelines was overdue) should have been performed in April 1987 when the coils were discovered. An investigation was apparently performed at that time by the Inspection Service, yet no reports or evidence relating to that investigation were presented. (Petitioner’s attempts to secure from Respondent a copy of that investigative report were unsuccessful.) Moreover, Respondent failed to provide any probative evidence to support the determination to credit Ms. Ordonez (whose loss had occurred 11 months earlier) with the overage.

Respondent argues that based on the applicable rules Petitioner is strictly accountable for any losses in cases such as this where Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care over his Federal Station reserve stock. The record is supportive of the contention that Petitioner’s practices and record—keeping concerning the Federal Station reserve stock demonstrated less than reasonable care. It follows that Petitioner is liable for losses of stock subject to his accountability. However, the principal issue respecting the 200 coils is whether the loss, or shortage of $4,400, at Federal Station has been proved.  On this issue Respondent’s evidence falls short.

Based on the record evidence, it is concluded that the 200 coils discovered in April 1987 were part of Petitioner’s reserve stock for the Federal Station.  Accordingly, Petitioner should be credited with the value of those coils ($4,400).

DECISION

The amount of the debt which may be collected through the involuntary administrative salary offsets under the Debt Collection Act is reduced from $4,897.76 to $497.76.

                             James E. Lemert

                             Administrative Judge

                             Hearing Official