In the Matter of the Petition by)   January 22, 1999
				)
CEASAR CARDE			)
P.O. Box 54			)
				)
				)
				)
Greenwich, CT  06836-0054	)   P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-540

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:	Nolan Cox
				President, Stamford Local APWU
				P. O. Box 195
				Stamford, CT 06904-0195

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

Petitioner, Caesar Carde, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated October 26, 1998, from the Greenwich, Connecticut Postmaster. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $336.92 from Petitioner’s salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner’s flexible credit account, disclosed by an audit on August 26, 1998.

A hearing was held in Stamford, Connecticut on January 5, 1999. The Postal Service presented testimony from Richard Nemetz, the Customer Services Supervisor, who performed the audit. Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Both parties also relied on documents attached to the Petition and the Answer, and Respondent presented some additional documents. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.

1. Petitioner has been a Postal Service employee for 15 years, a window clerk for 14 years, and has been a window clerk at the Glenville Station of the Greenwich Post Office for about 5 years (Tr. 40).^1/

2. Stamp stock at the Glenville Station is kept in a safe, secured by a combination lock. The combination is known to the three window clerks. Within the safe are individual locked compartments for each clerk. Each clerk has a key only for his/her individual compartment. Each compartment includes a removable drawer, which the clerk unlocks, removes, and places in his/her counterline workstation when starting the workday. At the end of the workday, the clerk replaces the drawer in the safe and locks it. (Tr. 8-15).

3. On August 26, 1998, Richard Nemetz, the Supervisor of Customer Services for the Glenville Station, and other locations, conducted a regular quarterly audit of Petitioner’s stamp credit account, and found it to be $336.92 short (Tr. 7-8).^2/

4. Petitioner was present during the count conducted by Mr. Nemetz, and signed the PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, stating that he agreed with the count. (Atch. 4 to Respondent’s Answer; Tr. 65-66).

5. Shortly after the August 1998 audits of all three window clerks, at which all three had shortages, and after which the clerks complained about the security of their drawers, Mr. Nemetz issued new drawers and locks to the clerks (Tr. 16, 23-24). Mr. Nemetz was aware that the stamp drawers were old, and acknowledged that it might have been possible to force them open, but there was no evidence that any drawer had actually been forced open (Tr. 16, 35-36). No one had reported any breaches in the security of the clerks’ stock prior to the August 26, 1998 audits (Tr. 12-13, 23, 29-30).

Respondent argues that the August 26, 1998 audit, the accuracy of which is not disputed, establishes a loss of $336.92 from Petitioner’s account, and that Petitioner’s claims of possible breaches in security are nothing more than speculation, not supported by any evidence that someone else had access to his stamp stock. Therefore, Respondent argues, there is no basis for relieving Petitioner from the strict liability standard prescribed in postal regulations.

Petitioner argues that the Postal Service failed in its duty to provide Petitioner with adequate security for protecting his stamp stock, as evidenced by the fact that the supervisor replaced defective equipment immediately after the August 26, 1998 audit of Petitioner and other clerks. Petitioner also argues that the inability to locate his duplicate key at the time of the August 26 audit demonstrates Respondent’s failure to provide proper security.

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 that they followed the postal procedures established when

performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 141. 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. In this case there is no such evidence, and a loss of $336.92 is established. The burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

Petitioner’s arguments as to lack of adequate security are not persuasive. Even assuming his stamp drawer did not lock as tightly as it should, there is no evidence that any unauthorized person ever had access to Petitioner’s stamp stock. Nor is there any evidence that Petitioner complained to his supervisors about the condition of his drawer before August 26, 1998. He had been using that drawer for approximately five years. The mere fact that management replaced the drawer after the August 26 audit does not prove that management failed in its responsibility to provide adequate security. The relevance of the matter of the duplicate key is unclear. Petitioner testified that this key could not be located during the August 26 audit, but Mr. Nemetz, who conducted that audit, was not asked about this on cross-examination. Mr. Nemetz did testify that he had received no report that Petitioner’s key envelope had been tampered with. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Petitioner’s duplicate key had been lost.

The only remaining issue is whether the evidence shows that Petitioner followed established procedures and should be relieved of liability under the standard of Handbook F-1, quoted above. Neither side presented any specific evidence on this point, but the burden is on the employee and Petitioner failed to meet that burden in this case.

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $336.92 from Petitioner’s salary.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge