In the Matter of the Petition by: 

 GARY T. CROWLEY,
 1010 North Pennsylvania Avenue,
 at Plant City, FL  33566-3678

 P.S. Docket No. DCA-92

 10/18/91

 Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Francis J. Peterson, President, NAPS Local Branch #81, 13303 Lake George Place, Tampa, FL 33618-3225 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: William Daigneault, Labor Relations Representative, U. S. Postal Service, 5201 W. Spruce Street, Tampa, FL  33630-9407

By timely petition filed July 29, 1991, Petitioner Gary T. Crowley requested a hearing on a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act (Notice) issued on July 16, 1991.

In a conference call with the representatives of the parties on September 10, 1991, it was agreed that the case would be submitted for decision without an oral hearing on the written record, supplemented by written argument to be filed by the Postal Service by September 26, 1991, and responded to in writing by Petitioner by September 28, 1991. Petitioner's final written argument was received by the Recorder on October 2, 1991. In order to provide time for the filing of such written argument and for consideration of same by the undersigned, the parties waived the 60-day limitation on issuance of the final decision.

The following findings of fact are based on the written record which was closed on the filing of Petitioner's final argument.

1. Petitioner Gary T. Crowley is the Superintendent, Postal Operations, at the Plant City, FL Post Office and was assigned and responsible for main stock at that post office in 1987 and particularly during the period July - August 1987 when events relevant to this matter occurred.

2. The main stock was audited on August 21, 1987, and found to be short $1,100.00.

3. Ms. M. Cook was a Window Technician, Level 6, at the Plant City Post Office during the period July - August 1987.

4. On August 12, 1987, Ms. Cook's accountability was audited by Petitioner Crowley and found to be short $522.52.

5. Ms. Cook requested a recount and on August 20, 1987, she was audited again and found to be short only $.50.

6. Approximately June 1987, the Postal Service issued a commemorative 22 cents stamp honoring the anniversary of Delaware Statehood. Four hundred sheets (20,000) of these stamps having a face value of $4,400.00 were received by Mr. Crowley into main stock.

7. On July 16, 1987, Mr. Crowley issued 5,000 of these stamps to Ms. Cook..

8. On July 21, Mr. Crowley issued 10,000 of such stamps to Ms. Cook.

9. Between July 21, 1987 and August 14, 1987, Ms. Cook re-issued 7,500 of these stamps to other window clerks.

10. The August 20, 1987 audit of Ms. Cook's credit reflected that she had 11,900 Delaware stamps in her stock.

11. On August 27, 1987, Ms. Cook signed a P.S. Form 17 (correcting an August 11, 1987 P.S. Form 17) showing that on August 11 she received from Petitioner Crowley 4,500 22 cents Delaware stamps and 500 22 cent Flag stamps, totalling in value $1,100.00.

12. In 1989 Ms. Cook filed a grievance protesting a letter of demand in the amount of $1,100.00 issued to her on August 27, 1987 based on the shortage of that amount in her credits resulting from the August 20, 1987 audit coupled with the corrected P.S. Form 17 signed by her on August 27 (see finding 11, above).

13. Ms. Cook's grievance was heard by Arbitrator Ernest E. Marlatt on November 29, 1989. He issued his decision on February 6, 1990 (mistakenly dated Feb. 6, 1989).

14. Arbitrator Marlatt's decision contains the following findings pertinent to the instant proceeding based on the testimony of Mr. Crowley and Ms. Cook at the hearing:

On August 11, a substantial issue of stock was made by Mr. Crowley to the Grievant. The receipt did not reflect any Delaware stamps having been included in the issue.

The Grievant was audited on August 12 and was found to be short in the amount of $522.52. The report of this audit was on an outdated Form 3294 which did not break down her stock into specific commemorative issues, but merely contained a large space to enter the totals of all 22-cent stamps on hand. She apparently requested a recount, and this was accomplished on August 20. A new Form 3294 was used, and it reflected a count of 11,900 Delaware stamps in her stock. The account was this time in tolerance and, in fact, was only fifty cents short.

About the same time, Mr. Crowley was audited and came up $1,100.00 short. He went through records in the office and concluded that the missing stock had actually been issued to the Grievant on August 11 but had been omitted from the Form 17. From the records, he deduced that the August 11 issue of stock to her had included 4,500 of his remaining 5,000 Delaware stamps plus 500 of the definitive 22-cent flag stamps.

The report of Mr. Crowley's audit was not introduced in evidence,a nd there is no way to know how many Delaware stamps, if any, remained in the main stock.

Testimony differed widely as to what happened next. According to Mr. Crowley, he called the Grievant privately into his office, showed her all the Form 17's, and pointed out that she had reissued 7,500 Delaware stamps and had another 11,900 in her possession on August 20, a total of 19,400 stamps, whereas she had only signed for 15,000. According to Mr. Crowley, the Grievant agreed that she must have received 4,500 additional Delaware stamps from him which had been inadvertently omitted from the August 11, receipt, and also that she must have received at the same time another 500 of the definitive flag stamps (although there was no way to trace these because large quantities of this stamp changed hands almost daily.) At Mr. Crowley's request, she signed a new receipt for the missing 5,000 stamps, reciting, "The form 17 corrects error on Form 17 dated 8-11-87."

The Grievant told an entirely different story. She stated that Mr. Crowley approached her on the screen line with the new receipt already made out and told her that he believed she was responsible for his shortage in the main stock and that she would have to cover it. When she protested, he became enraged, slammed the form on her desk, and demanded that she sign it immediately. She testified that she did so because she was afraid of being fired. Another window clerk, Linda Pyatt, testified that she overheard the conversation, and corroborated the Grievant's version.

15. Arbitrator Marlatt concluded that Ms. Cook had probably received the 4,500 Delaware stamps in question from Mr. Crowley on August 11, 1987. However, he concluded that since Crowley had not permitted Cook to verify the stock count before requiring her to assume responsibility for the $1,100 shortage by signing the Form 17 correcting the August 11 Form 17, and because the proximate cause of the shortage was Crowley's failure to exercise due care in the preparation of accountability documents, Ms. Cook should not be held liable for the shortage and that the letter of demand should be rescinded.

16. The amount of $1,100.00 is missing from the accountability of the Plant City, FL Post Office.

17. On July 16, 1991 the Postmaster, Plant City, FL issued to Mr. Crowley a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act on account of his indebtedness for this $1,100.00 shortage resulting from his "failure to exercise reasonable care in the handling of the Main Stamp Stock."

Part 132 - "Other Employees" - of Postal Handbook F-1 (Post Office Accounting Procedures) provides that employees to whom the postmaster consigns postal funds and accountable paper "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties."

Petitioner Crowley acknowledges that the stamps in question and the accountability therefor had been assigned to him by the Plant City postmaster. He also says that he consigned 4,500 22 cents Delaware stamps (face value $1,100.00) to Ms. Cook on August 11 without entering them on the P.S. Form 17 and, therefore, not obtaining her receipt for such stamps. This failure was a violation of part 221 - "Stamp Credit Transactions" - of Handbook F-50 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

221 Stamp Credit Transactions

The following guidelines are provided to stamp credit consigners and consignees in an effort to avoid discrepancies in stamp stock transactions:

a. Stamp stock requisitions must not be given the employee unless time is available for a proper count of the stock. The employee must list stock counted on the reverse of the accompanying Form 17, Stamp Requisition, and assure agreement with the amounts on the front.

Unfortunately for Petitioner Crowley, Ms. Cook was relieved of liability for the $1,100.00 shortage in the grievance proceeding. I have no jurisdiction to review or change the arbitrator's decision in that proceeding. This leaves Petitioner as the sole responsible employee involved and, since he did not exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties with respect to consigning the stamps in question to Ms. Cook, I must conclude that he has been properly held accountable for the shortage and that the notice dated July 16, 1991, was properly issued to him.

Petitioner has made no claim of severe financial hardship and has not offered an alternative offset schedule. Therefore, no change will be made in the amount and schedule of deductions set forth in the Notice.

The petition is dismissed.