In the Matter of the Petition by  	) July 13, 1998
      					)
GLORIA LOHOTSKY   			)
6 Leslie Street    			)
      					)
 at     				)
      					)
Stamford, CT  06902-4611   		) P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-197


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 		Gloria Lohotsky
      					6 Leslie Street
      					Stamford, CT  06902-4611

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 		Paula Tomaszewski
      					Labor Relations Specialist
      					United States Postal Service
      					141 Weston Street
      					Hartford, CT 06101-9411

Petitioner, Gloria Lohotsky, filed this Petition under the Debt Collection Act after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated April 14, 1998, from her postmaster. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $323.22 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner's flexible credit account. Petitioner asked for a hearing based solely on written submissions.

Petitioner filed a brief supplement to the Petition. Respondent filed an Answer, with several documents attached, and also filed a Supplemental Answer, with several additional documents. The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by the parties.⁽¹⁾

1. Petitioner has been a window clerk for approximately ten years. At the time pertinent to this case, she worked at a branch of the Greenwich, Connecticut Post Office known as the West Putnam Station.

2. A letter of demand for $323.22 was given to Petitioner on August 11, 1995, and the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, signed by Postmaster Robert Pilkington on April 14, 1998, was received by Petitioner on April 17, 1998 (RSx. 5, Rx. 7).⁽²⁾

The standard for determining an employee's liability in a case such as this provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (April 1991), Section 132.⁽³⁾ Respondent's burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. Respondent is not required to prove any specific dereliction, or act of negligence, by Petitioner. When a properly conducted inventory, or audit, shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or the previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. If Respondent meets its burden of proof, the burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she exercised reasonable care or followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

In this case, Respondent has not met its burden of proving a loss. There is no PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, or any other record, to show when, how, or by whom, an audit was conducted. There is no evidence of what Petitioner's opening balance was at the time of the audit or how much stamp stock and cash was present. There is no sworn, written statement from the person who conducted the audit. There is nothing to point to as a concession by Petitioner that she had a $323.22 shortage. The fact that she was issued a letter of demand for that amount, or that her union filed a grievance on her behalf, is not sufficient to prove a loss.

The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $323.22 from Petitioner's salary.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge

2. The postmaster’s letter was not titled “Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets,” but it contained information on the employee’s right to petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act, and the parties have treated it as being the required Notice.

3. The current Handbook F-1, effective in November 1996, contains slightly different language. The earlier edition is cited here because the shortage occurred before November 1996.