In the Matter of the Petition by ) November 5, 1997 ) KATHY SANTIAGO ) 6363 Lakewood Drive ) ) at ) ) Falls Church, VA 22041-1228 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-304 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Kathy Santiago 6363 Lakewood Drive Falls Church, VA 22041-1228 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: R. B. Coleman Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 8409 Lee Highway, Suite 229 Merrifield, VA 22081-9401
Petitioner, Kathy Santiago, filed a Petition requesting a hearing based on written submissions under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from Respondent, United States Postal Service. The Notice informed Petitioner that Respondent intended to deduct a total of $290.20 from her salary to make up a shortage discovered in an audit of her window credit. Both parties submitted supplemental evidence and arguments.
1. Petitioner is a window clerk in the Annandale, Virginia Post Office. As such, she is assigned sole responsibility and is accountable for a credit consisting of cash, stamps and accountable paper which she uses for conducting her transactions with customers. (Respondent's Exhibit ("RX") 3, 4, 7; Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996)("F-1 Handbook"), Section 426.1).
2. Petitioner's credit was counted by her supervisor on June 2 or 3, 1997, and found to be short $291.24 (RX 1).
3. Petitioner requested a recount, and one was conducted on June 3 by a non-supervisory employee. That count showed a shortage of $290.20. Between the two counts, Petitioner conducted window transactions with customers. (RX 2; Petition).
4. The audit of Petitioner's credit that immediately preceded these counts was conducted on January 24, 1997, and reflected an overage of $462.91. The four counts that preceded the January 24 count all showed overages, ranging from $.67 to $68.38, and the next count after June 3, conducted on August 21, 1997, showed an overage of $188.84. (Attachment to Supplement to Petition; Attachment to Petition).
5. On June 9, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for $290.20 (RX 3), and on August 8, 1997, Respondent issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in that amount (RX 4), which Petitioner has challenged in this proceeding.
6. In Section 141, the F-1 Handbook describes the circumstances under which an employee will be held liable for a shortage in an assigned credit: "Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties."
7. Employees, such as Petitioner, who are responsible for stock and accountable paper are to maintain the stock in the security equipment provided "and advise management in writing of equipment inadequacy or malfunction." (F-1 Handbook, Sections 151.3, 416.3).
8. Petitioner stores her stock in an individually-assigned drawer that she secures in the post office safe while not working at the window. Access to drawers with locks like Petitioner's may sometimes be accomplished with a screwdriver even though the drawer is locked (Petitioner's October 18, 1997 Response).
9. On three occasions (one in February, one in March and one on June 20, 1997), in the course of issuing stamp stock, Petitioner's supervisor gave Petitioner more stock than Petitioner had requisitioned. On each occasion, Petitioner promptly returned the extra stamps (Supplement to Petition).
Respondent contends that the shortage was established by the audits and that Petitioner is not entitled to credit for overages in previous or subsequent counts because there has been no relationship shown between those overages and the shortage at issue in this proceeding.
Petitioner argues that the June 3, 1997 count of her stock, on which Respondent based its claim, was invalid for two reasons. First, although Section 429.1 of the F-1 Handbook provides that supervisory personnel are to conduct examinations of stamp credits, the second count, on June 3, was not conducted by a supervisor. Second, Petitioner contends that her conduct of window transactions between the two counts violates standard practice and invalidates the second count. However, despite pointing to what she contends are procedural errors, Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of either of the counts. She has pointed to no regulation or rule that would require that the results of the counts be ignored for Respondent's failure to comply precisely with the identified requirements of the F-1 Handbook, and she has not demonstrated that any procedural deficiencies had an effect on the accuracy of the counts. Additionally, that two counts were done that differed in their calculation of the shortage by only $1.04 strongly supports a conclusion that the second count, on which Respondent relies, was correct and that any procedural deficiencies did not affect its accuracy.
Petitioner also argues that the $462.91 overage in her credit when it was last counted should be offset against the shortage disclosed on June 3 and that she has a sufficient amount in trust -- presumably due to the previous overage -- to offset the shortage. However, a previous or subsequent overage balance may be used to offset a current shortage only if a relationship between the two is established, see Handbook F-1, Section 429.16, and Petitioner has not demonstrated any relationship between the earlier overage and the shortage at issue here or between the subsequent overage in her credit and the instant shortage. She additionally argues that an overage in the main stock should be offset against her shortage, but she has not shown that there was an overage in the main stock, and, again, she would be required to show a relationship between any main stock overage and her shortage.
Petitioner has asserted that drawers like hers can be accessed with a screwdriver while stored in the post office safe and suggests that someone might have taken stock from her drawer in this manner, causing her shortage. However, the mere possibility that the shortage could have occurred through such unauthorized access is not sufficient, and Petitioner has failed to show any correlation between the security of her drawer and the shortage. Further, Petitioner has not shown that she expressed any concern regarding the security of her credit in writing, as required by the F-1 Handbook (Finding 7).
Respondent has demonstrated it incurred a loss by showing that there was a shortage in Petitioner's credit. Respondent is not required to prove any dereliction or negligence on the part of Petitioner. To avoid strict liability for the loss, Petitioner must provide evidence that she "followed the postal procedures established when performing [her] duties," a prerequisite under the F-1 Handbook to absolving her of responsibility for the shortage (Finding 6). Petitioner has presented evidence of her honesty (Finding 9), which Respondent has not questioned, but she has not offered evidence that she followed postal procedures in managing her window credit and conducting transactions that could affect her stock balance. Accordingly, Respondent may collect the amount of the shortage by administrative offset.(1)
The Petition is denied.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge