In the Matter of the Petition by ) June 3, 1997 ) CARINA KIM ) 2184 A Hoohai Street ) ) at ) ) Pearl City, HI 96782-1756 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-99 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Carina Kim 2184 A Hoohai Street Pearl City, HI 96782-1756 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Myron M. Matsumoto Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 3600 Aolele Street Honolulu, HI 96820-3641
Petitioner, Carina Kim, filed a petition for a hearing on written submissions after receiving a February 27, 1997 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Manager of Customer Service Support, Honolulu, Hawaii. This letter stated the intention of the Postal Service to make withholdings from Petitioner's salary to collect $842.22, representing a shortage found in her accountability at the Stamp Distribution Office, Honolulu, Hawaii. The record
consists of the Petition and Answer; a response by Petitioner to the Answer; a further submittal by Respondent and Respondent's rebuttal to Petitioner's second submittal(1).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is the acting supervisor of the Honolulu Stamp Distribution Office (Petition). Among the duties of this position is the accountability for the main stock (Petitioner's second submittal, Exhibit 4). Petitioner did not receive official training in the duties of this position, but did receive basic instruction from her predecessor prior to assuming the position. This was the same training given to all other employees assigned to this position. At the time of assuming her duties, Petitioner was informed that she should contact her counterparts with any questions she might have about her duties. Petitioner would, on occasion, contact her counterparts with questions about her duties. (Respondent's Answer, Exhibits 3 and 4; Respondent's Rebuttal, Exhibit 3).
2. On January 9, 1997, an audit of her accountability at the Stamp Distribution Office disclosed a shortage of $11,083.22. Petitioner signed the audit worksheet evidencing her agreement with the count. (Respondent's Answer, Exhibit 1). It was subsequently determined that $10,259.00 of stock had been destroyed on
November 8, 1996, but had not been correctly reported on Form 3238. The shortage in Petitioner's accountability was, therefore, reduced to $842.22 (Respondent's Second Submittal, Exhibit 1).
3. The cause of the shortage was not explained by either party. However, Petitioner speculated that the shortage may have occurred when she credited her inventory incorrectly, or because of counting errors. Petitioner further stated that she was unaware that she could refuse to send out a stamp shipment if she could not have someone independently verify the quantity of stamps in the shipment.(2) (Petitioner's Second Submittal).
4. Petitioner requests that, in the event she is found liable, the payment schedule be extended because of the financial hardship the proposed 15% of net pay schedule would impose (Petition).
DECISION
Petitioner argues that she should not be held liable because she was not adequately trained prior to assuming the responsibilities of the position as supervisor of the Stamp Distribution Office. Petitioner also argues that on occasion when her clerk was on leave, she would not be provided a replacement clerk or would be provided a clerk who was not properly trained in the duties of the position.
Respondent argues that there is no official training course for the position and that Petitioner received adequate "on-the-job training" before assuming the responsibilities of the position. Respondent further argues that Petitioner has failed to show how a lack of a qualified replacement clerk caused the shortage.
The applicable standard of liability in this dispute can be found in Subsection 132, Other Employees, of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures. This section provides, inter alia, that employees who are assigned responsibility for postal funds and other accountable paper will be held strictly liable for any loss unless they can demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties. Thus, in the case of an unexplained loss the Postal Service must only prove that a loss has occurred and that the person charged was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. Respondent is not required to prove any dereliction or negligence on the part of Petitioner. Respondent has met that burden in this proceeding. Petitioner does not dispute that she was assigned the responsibility as custodian of the stock at the Stamp Distribution Office and that there was a shortage of $842.22 in her accountability. (Finding of Fact Nos. (FOF) 1, 2).
Petitioner's argument concerning a lack of training, even if true, would not exonerate her from responsibility for shortages which are legitimately found to exist in the stamp stock under her custody. It is Petitioner's responsibility, once assigned the duties of financial accountability, to learn what is necessary and required of her,
and to perform those duties until relieved of the responsibility. See Rick D. Williams, P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-407 (March 19, 1997); Leloi Tuitama, P.S. Docket No. DCA-24, (Sept. 23, 1988). In fact, Petitioner did receive "on-the-job training" and availed herself of the opportunity to call her more experienced counterparts when she had questions concerning the duties of the position (FOF 1).
The only remaining issue is whether Petitioner exercised reasonable care in performing her duties as stock custodian. Petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing that she exercised reasonable care. To the contrary, the evidence she submitted suggests a failure to exercise reasonable care. She speculated that the loss may have occurred because she may have credited her inventory incorrectly or committed counting errors. Her statement that she was unaware that she could refuse to send out a shipment of stamps, if the quantity had not been independently verified, suggests that she had done so on occasion, despite admonitions during her on-the-job training that she must have all stamp shipments verified. (FOF 3). Her complaints about the qualifications of the replacement clerks assigned to her, when her clerk was absent, does not relieve her of the responsiblity to perform her own duties with reasonable care.
Based on the facts in the record of this petition, I cannot find that Petitioner exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties. Accordingly, she is liable for the repayment of the $842.22. Nevertheless, because Petitioner has demonstrated financial hardship in meeting the proposed repayment schedule, she may repay the debt by $75.00 installments in lieu of the $157.27 installments specified in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets letter.
William K. Mahn Administrative Judge
2. The importance of having someone verify all stamp shipments, both incoming and outgoing, was emphasized in the training provided by her predecessor (Respondent's Answer, Exhibit 4).