In the Matter of the Petition by  	) September 11, 1998
     					)
CAROLYN J. PARKER   			)
2464 Park Avenue    			)
      					)
 at     				)
      					)
Paducah, KY  42001-3055   		) P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-276

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 		Carolyn J. Parker
      					2464 Park Avenue
      					Paducah, KY  42001-3055

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 		Huck Cecil
      					Labor Relations Specialist
      					United States Postal Service
      					P. O. Box 31401
      					Louisville, KY 40231-9401

Petitioner, Carolyn Parker, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated May 29, 1998, from her postmaster. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $600.00 from Petitioner's salary to recover losses sustained when Petitioner cashed two money orders that had been stolen.

A hearing was held in Paducah, Kentucky on September 1, 1998. The Postal Service presented testimony from the postmaster, Ms. Faulkner-Elmore; a supervisory window clerk, Mr. Clark; and the customer service supervisor, Ms. Cargill. In addition to testifying in her own behalf, Petitioner presented testimony from another clerk, Ms. Horn; and a union representative, Ms. Fisher. Both parties relied on documentary evidence attached to the Petition and Respondent's Answer, and also submitted some additional documents. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner has been a window clerk at the Paducah Post Office since 1994. She received two weeks of classroom type training and one week of on-the-job training, which she satisfactorily completed on March 11, 1994. (Tr. 11-14; Respondent's Answer, Tabs 2-4).⁽¹⁾

2. On October 30, 1997, two individuals who identified themselves as James Smith and Roger Beasley each presented two $300.00 money orders at the Paducah Post Office, asking to cash them. (Tr. 6; Respondent's Answer, Tab 1). The money orders were issued by Republic Money Order Company, payable at Compass Bank, Dallas, Texas, with Speedway gas stations as the issuing agent. Petitioner called a "1-800" number on the reverse of the money orders, gave the serial numbers of the four money orders, and was told that the money orders were "good" (Tr. 75). This meant only that those money orders had, in fact, been issued by Republic Money Order Company (Tr. 26-27).

3. Petitioner cashed two of the money orders, for Mr. "Beasley," and another clerk, Ms. Horn, cashed the two for Mr. "Smith" (Tr. 8, 78; Rx. 1). Neither Petitioner nor Ms. Horn read the information on the back of the money orders that warned against accepting these money orders unless the printed amount of dollars on the front matched the sample style shown on the back, or the warning that stated, "persons receiving this money order should accept it only from those known to them and against whom they have effective recourse." (Tr. 50, 72). The printed amounts on the front of these four money orders did not match the style shown on the back of the money orders (Rx. 1).

4. On November 19, 1997, Republic Money Order Company refused payment on the money orders because it was determined that they had been stolen. The Postal Inspection Service also determined that the Indiana addresses given by Mr. Beasley and Mr. Smith were false addresses. Neither Beasley nor Smith has been found. (Respondent's Answer, Tab 1).

5. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, states the following rule:

313.1 Accepting Guaranteed Payment Checks

Accept certified checks, cashier's checks and drafts, nonpostal money orders, . . .. The maker must issue payment in the exact dollar amount of the purchase of postal products. Do not cash these types of checks.

6. Neither the F-1 Handbook nor other Postal Service manuals are immediately available to clerks at the window at the Paducah Post Office (Tr. 40, 46). There is an F-1 Handbook in the Customer Service Supervisor's office, and the supervisor, as well as an experienced window clerk technician ("T-6"), are available to answer questions for the clerks (Tr. 29, 39-40). Three clerks work the window at the Paducah Post Office (Tr. 35).

7. In the training manual used to train window clerks, the written portion that deals with money orders (Module 20) discusses policies and procedures for the sale and acceptance of postal money orders. It contains no specific written rules on nonpostal money orders. (Pet. Ex. 2). Ms. Horn was trained by the same individual as was Petitioner, although not in the same class. She recalls being told verbally by the trainer that postal money orders were the only type that were allowed to be cashed. (Tr. 59). It was generally known by Paducah Post Office employees that nonpostal money orders are not to be cashed (Tr. 31, 40).

There is no dispute in this case that the Postal Service suffered a loss of $600.00, and that this loss was the result of Petitioner cashing two stolen money orders. There also seems to be no dispute that Ms. Parker is an honest and loyal employee. The only issue is whether her lack of awareness of the prohibition against cashing nonpostal money orders should relieve her of liability. Unfortunately, it does not. The rules against cashing all such instruments are clearly stated in the F-1 Handbook, and an employee who has completed the required training, as well as having worked as a window clerk for a substantial time, must be charged with having knowledge of these rules. The fact that postal manuals were not within easy reach of the window does not change this conclusion. If Petitioner had a question about the propriety of accepting any particular instrument, supervisors and a more experienced clerk were readily available. Assuming she had no question about accepting these money orders, having the manuals close at hand would not have caused her to look up the rule.

Petitioner also testified that she had cashed nonpostal money orders before, in support of her argument that she believed it was permissible to do so. However, in the absence of evidence that her supervisors were aware of this and condoned the practice, and there is no such evidence, this is not a basis for relieving her of liability.

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $600.00 from Petitioner's salary.

       					Bruce R. Houston
       					Chief Administrative Law Judge