In the Matter of the Petition by) December 29, 1998 ) WILLIAM P. TIMMONS ) 1201 Hillcrest Court ) ) ) ) Hollywood, FL 33021-7879 P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 98-431 & DCA 98-432 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: William P. Timmons 1201 Hillcrest Court #210 Hollywood, FL 33021-7879 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Toby Lowe Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 2200 NW 72nd Avenue Miami, FL 33152-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, William P. Timmons, filed timely Petitions for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. The Notices advised Petitioner that the Postal Service intended to make deductions from his salary to collect a total of $1,658.07, based on shortages in Petitioner’s window credit discovered in two audits in March and April of 1997.
An oral hearing was held at which evidence was presented regarding both of the shortages at issue, and the parties made closing arguments in support of their positions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant to these Petitions, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Hollywood Hills Station in Hollywood, Florida (Transcript of Hearing, Page ("Tr.") 74).
2. Petitioner was an experienced window clerk, often assigned extra duties by management because of his skill and knowledge of post office procedures. He was routinely assigned much more stamp stock than other clerks in the station, and his window credit was at least double that of the other window clerks. He supplied stamps in bulk to a supermarket chain and also handled stamps-by-mail for the station. (Tr. 21, 27, 57-59).
3. Petitioner was held in high regard by his supervisors, two of whom testified at the hearing that he generally followed established procedures regarding his window credit. (Tr. 15, 27, 37, 47-48).
4. When not working at the window, Petitioner stored his stamp and cash drawers in the station vault. The vault is accessed by a combination, but each window clerk has exclusive control of the key to his or her individual drawers stored in the vault. (Tr. 45-46). Although a trained maintenance technician could open the drawers without using the key, such access, especially if done by someone without training, would cause visible damage to the drawers and/or frames (Tr. 51-54).
5. Sometime between August and December 1996, Petitioner’s supervisor discovered about $800 worth of Petitioner’s stamp stock left unsecured in the vault after all the clerks had gone for the day. Petitioner had neglected to put it in his assigned drawers or take other precautions to secure it. The supervisor returned the stock to Petitioner and gave Petitioner an official discussion about leaving his stock unsecured. (Tr. 15-18, 20, 81). Prior to that incident, Petitioner had never been disciplined for lack of security (Tr. 31), and Petitioner’s supervisors knew of no other instances where he failed to follow procedures (Tr. 26-27, 31, 37, 47-48).
6. The registry cage, where registered mail is handled, is a separate, secure storage area adjacent to the vault, and access to the registry has nothing to do with access to the vault or to the clerks’ drawers stored in the vault. At some time in 1997, there was a theft from the registry cage. (Tr. 55-56, 77-78).
7. In February, 1997, two relief clerks, who from time to time worked from Petitioner’s window, had shortages of about $200 each (Tr. 24-25, 38; RX 6).
8. At some time or times before March of 1997, Petitioner had complained to management that he did not have sufficient drawer space in the vault to store the extra stock given him, but he was not given additional storage space. He had to squeeze his stock in the drawers he was assigned (Tr. 81), but there was no showing that his stock would not fit in his cash and stamp drawers.
9. On March 5, 1997, Petitioner and his supervisor counted Petitioner’s window credit—his stock of stamps, cash and other accountable paper—revealing a shortage of $1,212.74. Petitioner signed the record of the count—PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary—indicating his agreement with the count. (Tr. 12-15, 27-28; Respondent’s Exhibit ("RX") 8). The supervisor who conducted the March 5 audit was surprised when the $1,212.74 shortage was discovered, given his regard for Petitioner’s skill and experience at the window (Tr. 15). The amount of the shortage was placed in suspense, thus returning Petitioner’s credit to a balanced condition (Tr. 47).
10. On or about March 7, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a letter of demand requesting that he immediately repay the amount of $1,212.74 (Tr. 18; RX 9).
11. Petitioner’s union filed a grievance regarding the letter of demand issued to him after the March 3, 1997 shortage. The grievance was based on management’s alleged failure to provide adequate security because the combination to the vault had not been changed when a former clerk, who knew the combination, had transferred from the office in 1996 (RX 12).
12. On April 3, 1997, Petitioner and a supervisor counted Petitioner’s window credit again, and this time his credit was short by $445.90. Again, Petitioner signed the Form 3294 signifying his agreement with the count. (Tr. 34-35; RX 1).
13. Petitioner was not authorized to keep more than $100 in cash in his window credit overnight, and he was aware of this limitation (Tr. 36-37; RX 4). The April 3 count of Petitioner’s credit revealed that he had kept $154.60 in cash over the previous night (Tr. 34-35; RX 1).
14. On April 3, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a letter of demand seeking repayment of $445.90 (Tr. 35; RX 2).
15. On August 26, 1998, Respondent issued Petitioner two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets advising that Respondent intended to withhold from Petitioner’s salary to collect for the two shortages noted above (Petitioner’s Exhibits ("PX") 1, 2).
16. Petitioner filed timely Petitions challenging the collections. The alleged debt of $1,212.74 was docketed as DCA No. 98-432, and the alleged $445.90 debt was docketed as DCA No. 98-431.
17. The F-1 Handbook, Post Office Accounting Procedures, establishes liability for financial losses to assigned accountability as follows:
"141 Other Employees’ Liability
The postmaster or responsible manager consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other career employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." (F-1 Handbook (1996), Section 14).
DECISION
Respondent argues that Petitioner is responsible for the two shortages at issue in these proceedings because he failed to exercise reasonable care in managing his window credit. Petitioner argues that he should not be held liable because Respondent failed to provide adequate security for his stock. He also argues that the computer terminal used at his window may have malfunctioned.
Respondent presented evidence supporting the accuracy of the two counts of Petitioner’s window credit (Findings 9, 12), and Petitioner has not challenged the results of the audits. Thus, Respondent has shown that it suffered losses in the amount of the two shortages, and Petitioner will be liable for those losses unless he can show that security lapses by Respondent likely led to the shortages or that he followed postal procedures when performing his duties as a window clerk (Finding 17).
Petitioner has not shown that Respondent failed to provide adequate security for his stock. His arguments are addressed below.
1. Security for Petitioner’s stock was compromised because Respondent could not account for the duplicate keys to his drawers. Although Petitioner testified that he had asked his supervisors for the duplicate keys and that they had failed to provide them, Respondent’s witnesses did not recall such requests or that any of the keys were missing. Petitioner’s version of the events is undermined by the failure of Petitioner’s grievance regarding the March shortage (Finding 11) to mention the loss of the duplicate keys as a basis for relieving him of that shortage. On this record, it has not been shown that Respondent lost Petitioner’s duplicate keys.
2. The vault combination was not changed when a clerk who knew it was transferred to another position. Whether the vault combination was changed or not when a clerk transferred, access to the vault does not provide access to the individual drawers (Finding 4), and there was no evidence that anyone other than Petitioner had a key to his individual drawers. Thus, any failure to change the combination of the vault would not have caused his shortages.
3. The drawers stored in the vault could be broken into with a screw driver. While Petitioner was correct that the drawers in the vault could probably be broken into, the credible testimony of Respondent’s maintenance technicians was that it could not be done easily or quickly by one not trained in locksmithing as they were, and it could not be done without leaving visible damage to the drawers or the frame (Finding 4). There was no evidence that Petitioner’s drawers were ever damaged and no showing that the drawers were inadequately secured.
4. Petitioner was not given adequate secure space to store the stamp stock he was assigned. Petitioner had to squeeze his stock into his stamp and cash drawers, especially just after he was issued stock, and he had asked for additional storage space. However, there was no evidence that his stock would not fit into the storage compartments assigned to him. (Findings 2, 8).
5. Thefts from the registry cage indicated a lack of security. The registry cage was entirely separate from the vault (Finding 6), and there is no evidence that any theft from the registry cage would have had any bearing on Petitioner’s stamp stock shortages.
6. Petitioner’s window equipment may have malfunctioned. Petitioner has not provided any evidence that a malfunction of his workstation may have caused the counts to be incorrect. That two other clerks who may have used his workstation (as well as other workstations) had shortages in February 1997 (Finding 7) does not show that the workstation malfunctioned.
However, even though Petitioner has not shown that the shortages resulted from Respondent’s security practices, he will not be liable for the shortages if the evidence shows that he followed established procedures (Finding 17). Respondent contended that leaving stock unsecured, the two shortages themselves and Petitioner’s retention of more than $100 in his credit overnight indicated that he did not follow established procedures or exercise reasonable care. However, Petitioner’s supervisors testified at the hearing that Petitioner was a hard working employee who knew and followed established procedures and exercised reasonable care (Findings 2, 3). Because of his recognized competence, he was given extra duties and a much larger credit than other clerks. Putting aside the shortages themselves, the management witnesses knew of no particular failures by Petitioner to follow established procedures except for leaving the stock unsecured and the excess cash retainage.
Leading up to the March 5 audit, Petitioner’s inadvertent leaving of about $800 in stamp stock unsecured in the vault (Finding 5) is the only failure to follow established procedures that Respondent has identified. While that incident is significant, its impact in assessing whether Petitioner followed established procedures is overcome, albeit only slightly, by Petitioner’s exemplary record up to the date of the March 5 count of his stock. Petitioner’s supervisor who discovered the unsecured stock was surprised when the $1,212.74 shortage was disclosed in the March 5 audit (Finding 9), indicating that his confidence in Petitioner’s following procedures and exercising care remained high notwithstanding the stock left unsecured in the vault. Thus, considering Petitioner’s excellent reputation for exercising care and following established procedures, a preponderance of the evidence shows that up to the March 5 audit he followed established procedures1/. Accordingly, Petitioner is not liable for the $1,212.74 shortage.
Although the shortages were considered together for purposes of this consolidated proceeding, the circumstance of each must be considered separately under the standard of the F-1 Handbook (Finding 17). Consideration of the circumstances leading up to the discovery of the $445.90 shortage of April 3, just one month after the large shortage of March 5, leads to a different conclusion regarding Petitioner’s liability. When determining whether the preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Petitioner followed established procedures, his reputation for doing so outweighed his leaving $800 worth of stock unsecured in the vault. For the April 3 audit, other factors shift the balance in Respondent’s favor. First, while the March 5 shortage is not taken into account when determining whether Petitioner followed established procedures with respect to that audit (see footnote 1), a recent (here just one month earlier) history of substantial shortages in counts undercuts other evidence that Petitioner followed established procedures relative to the April 3 audit.
Additionally, although relatively insignificant in and of itself, Petitioner’s disregard of the $100 limit on cash to be retained overnight (Finding 13) suggests a casual view toward following established procedures, especially immediately after an unexplained $1,212.74 shortage which should have caused Petitioner to be particularly careful managing his window credit. Adding these factors into the balance for assessing the April 3 shortage, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he followed established procedures. Accordingly, Petitioner is liable for repayment of $445.90.
In Postal Service Docket No. DCA 98-431, the Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $445.90 from Petitioner’s salary. In Postal Service Docket No. DCA 98-432, the Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect the $1,212.74 shortage from Petitioner’s salary.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge