In the Matter of the Petition by: WILLIAM B. CLEGG, SPO, Orem Post Office at Orem, Utah 84057-9998 P.S. DOcket No. DCA-108 10/29/91 Thompson, Joan B., Administrative Judge APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Charles Holcomb, Utah State President NAPS, P. O. Box 204, Ogden, UT 84402-0204 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: L. G. Handy, Manager, Labor Relations, Salt Lake City Division, United States Postal Service, 1760 West 2100 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84199-9401
As provided by 39 C.F.R. § 961.8(g), this written decision confirms the decision given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this proceeding held on October 21, 1991, in Salt Lake City, Utah, as set forth at hearing transcript pages 120 through 129. Minor additions, deletions, and other editorial changes have been made.
By a timely-filed petition dated August 21, 1991, and received on August 26, 1991, by the Judicial Officer Department, United States Postal Service, Petitioner William B. Clegg requested an oral hearing on a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets under section 5 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 5 U.S.C. § 5514. This proceeding has been conducted pursuant to that Act and the implementing regulations in 39 C.F.R. Part 961.
The Notice advised Petitioner formally that he owed Respondent $4,922.50 due to a shortage in the main stock in the Orem Post Office counted on March 22, 1991, as Petitioner was the main stock custodian. Petitioner was also advised that deductions of 15% from his "disposable pay," amounting to approximately $190 from each paycheck for 26 pay periods, would be made starting September 21, 1991. The filing of this Petition has suspended that action.
The witness for Respondent in this case was Mr. James W. Chatlin, officer-in-charge of the Orem Post Office at the time of the audit on March 22, 1991. Witnesses called by the Petitioner were: Mr. Wallace L. Adams, Mr. James E. Twitchell, Mr. Keith T. Harward, and Mr. Clegg himself. The parties also stipulated that testimony of Mr. Lonnie V. Richardson would be similar to that elicited from Mr. Harward.
I make the following Findings of Fact based upon the testimony of the witnesses as presented at this hearing and the documents in the record.
Petitioner William B. Clegg has been a long-time employee of the United States Postal Service. He has been in the Orem Post Office for 31 years and he has been main stock custodian for at least 10 years. Before this incident there had been no shortages for which he was accountable. In addition, as the testimony of the witnesses indicated, he has had many other duties and responsibilities, especially during the time in question here when there was a change in personnel in the office and other actions which affected the workload of the office. Among those was the retirement of the preceding postmaster in the autumn of 1990. There was an interim officer-in-charge to fill in until a new postmaster was selected and he, Mr. Chatlin, was in charge during the time in question.
The testimony of all of the witnesses established that the conditions in the Orem Post Office during late 1990 and early 1991 left much to be desired, to speak mildly. During the time in question there were several on-going investigations by Postal Service inspectors. They included investigations to discover a possible thief or thieves of food stamps. Later their investigations expanded to include losses of postal stamps and retail stock. Their investigations took some of Mr. Clegg's time. He passed a lie-detector test given to many of the employees.
Also, in early 1991 there was a rate change. This caused much additional work for Mr. Clegg and other employees, especially because of the public's great demand for 4-cent stamps and new 29-cent stamps which necessitated much action with the main stock. Also, due to recent growth of population in that area and other matters, the Orem Post Office had become one of the 5 busiest post offices in the Salt Lake City Division (the State of Utah).
During the past two years, Mr. Clegg had made requests for additional personnel to help with the greatly-increased workload. However, those requests and requests to discuss problems at the post office with higher managers were not granted and he had to cope with ever-increasing duties and workload for which he was responsible.
I find that Mr. Clegg is a credible witness. I would agree with his statement made in this hearing that perhaps he was a little too trusting, and that may be part of the problem that came about, and that perhaps also some of the problems that increased his stress and bad health conditions were also due to an unwillingness (or whatever reason he was unable) to delegate some of the responsibility. However, it may well be that delegation was not a feasible practical situation under the circumstances.
I certainly find that he was a dedicated employee. The testimony of witnesses support that and that he was trying to do the best he could and worked many hours on his own time for which he was not compensated. His increased workload caused stress and exacerbated and contributed to his health problems, perhaps resulting in some of the difficulties that arose.
Now the crucial matter with regard to the shortage for which Mr. Clegg is being charged comes from his admission that probably this shortage in the main stock occurred during the period from February 15, 1991, to March 10, 1991, because of the type of postage that was missing. Therefore, it does not appear likely that the shortage occurred at any other time and I'll accept his testimony in that regard. There is nothing to counter that.
One of the difficulties for Mr. Clegg's position is that before that time he was aware there were security problems affecting the main stock in the cage and other employees were able to gain access. Specifically, he was personally aware, at least as of some time in January-February of 1991, that two supervisors had gained access to the main stock when he was not available by using a card to trip the lock. They did not use the key; he was the only person who had custody of the key to the door. At least five other employees, the window clerks, were aware it was possible to get into the main stock in an unauthorized way without the key.
Although Mr. Clegg became aware there was a security problem, he also had faith and trust in these employees and, therefore, apparently did not do all that should have been done to make the main stock more secure.
Witnesses who were aware of his work and who have held positions of responsibility have corroborated his testimony that he had too much to do at that time as they testified they would have had difficulty in doing some of the work he did and maintain the necessary control over the main stock while performing his other duties.
I find all of his testimony is corroborated by other witnesses. I am not aware of anything that refutes anything he has said.
It is a policy of the Postal Service "to provide and maintain work environments that are conducive to and promote the good health and safety of all employees." (LRM § 862.1, Petitioner's Exhibit 4).
The pertinent Postal Service regulations relating to postage stock accountability that have been submitted in this hearing are found in Handbook F-1 and Handbook F-50 (Respondent's Exhibit 2). This Judge would be happier if there had been a more complete record in this case such as other possibly relevant provisions or the complete handbooks. But all I have is what has been submitted by the parties.
It is clear from the provisions in the pages of those handbooks that have been submitted that postmasters are responsible for accountable paper and seeing that "accountable paper received into and dispensed from the Main Stock is controlled." (Handbook F-1 § 144.2, Respondent's Exhibit 1). So there is some responsibility on the part of the postmasters in seeing to the control regarding the main stock. However, responsibility for maintaining the main stock may be assigned to a supervisory employee having no access to the office cash records, and that duty had been assigned to Mr. Clegg.
This assignment is set forth further in Handbook F-1 at section 431.21 as follows: "Postmasters may assign responsibility for administering the Main Stock to a supervisory employee who will act as Main Stock custodian . . . ." (Id.) I conclude, therefore, that as Mr. Clegg was the main stock custodian, he did bear responsibility for administering the main stock.
After considering all the evidence in this case, I believe the Postal Service shares some of the responsibility for the loss that occurred here. The easily-broken into Postal Service cage cannot be attributed to Mr. Clegg, only his failure to take earlier remedial action once he became aware that it was not secure. Certain responsible Postal Service officials were aware of the stress that Mr. Clegg was undergoing during the time period this loss occurred. They were also aware of attempts Mr. Clegg made to have increased help and to be relieved of some of his work. Therefore, there are contributing factors in a bad situation where all of the witnesses agree there was some thievery going on in the Orem Post Office. There has been no indication that Mr. Clegg was the thief. His reputation, from what I've gathered from the witnesses, is unblemished. He is a long-time dedicated Postal Service employee.
Therefore, I think this should have been taken into account when there was an assessment of the accountability. I know it is very important for the Postal Service to have strict accountability of its money and postage, and I'm sure this will be a lesson to all who have been in on this proceeding.
Nevertheless, because of extenuating factors, it is my decision that Mr. Clegg should be responsible for only a portion of the amount that was assessed against him. I decide that he should be accountable in the amount of $1,000 of the loss. This amount should be taken from his pay over 26 pay periods, at approximately $38.50 per pay period.
As indicated previously, this is the final decision of the Postal Service. There is no further appeal within the Postal Service. However, the regulations, at 39 C.F.R. § 961.9, recognize that a motion for reconsideration may be filed by either party within 10 days from receipt of the decision, upon the showing of good reasons, and allowed only in the discretion of this hearing official.
As this decision is being made orally at this time (October 21, 1991), I extend the time for filing a motion for reconsideration to have that 10-day period begin from the time a written confirmation of this decision is sent to the parties. This will be after I receive the transcript from the Reporter. Editorial changes in the written decision may be made, but there will be no change in the ultimate result.