January 22, 1999 In the Matter of the Petition by SHERIDAN MCLAUGHLIN P.O. Box 1265 at Greenwich, CT 06836-1265 P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-542 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
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Sheridan McLaughlin, 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 $366.26 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 her 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a Postal Service employee for 13 years, has been a window clerk for 12 years, and has been a window clerk at the Glenville Station of the Greenwich Post Office for about 7 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 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. 11-14).
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 $366.26 short (Tr. 6).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 she agreed with the count. (Atch. 4 to Respondent’s Answer; Tr. 6).
5. Shortly after the August 1998 audits, and after Petitioner said she thought another employee might have tampered with her drawer, Mr. Nemetz issued new drawers and locks to all the clerks (Tr. 32-33, 42). Prior to this, even though the drawers were old, Mr. Nemetz had received no reports that they had been tampered with, that locks were defective, or that the clerks’ stock was insecure (Tr. 16-18, 34). Petitioner believed the clerks’ drawers could be pried open, but she had never done this, nor had she ever seen anyone else do it (Tr. 41, 61).
6. Other than the August 26, 1998 audit, Petitioner has never had a shortage that was not within the tolerance allowed by postal regulations (Tr. 40-41, 60-61).
7. Petitioner has left her workstation, with the drawer unlocked, to answer the telephone, which is nearby, but around a corner and out of sight from her workstation. On more than one occasion, Mr. Nemetz cautioned Petitioner not to leave her workstation without locking her drawer. (Tr. 17, 31, 35, 55).
DECISION
Respondent argues that the August 26, 1998 audit, the accuracy of which is not disputed, establishes a loss of $366.26 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 her stamp stock. Respondent also argues that Petitioner did not always follow established procedures, as evidenced by the occasions on which she left her workstation without locking her drawer. 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 her 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.
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 $366.26 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 her 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. Although Petitioner testified that the poor condition of the stamp drawers was "common knowledge," she never formally complained to any supervisor that her stock was insecure, and she had worked from that same drawer for several years, knowing its condition. 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 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 a great deal of evidence on this point. Petitioner’s record of having all previous counts within tolerance is some indication that she has followed established procedures in safeguarding her stamp stock. On the other hand, stepping away from, and out of sight of, her workstation without locking her drawer is not consistent with an employee’s duty to protect accountable stock at all times.3 Under the circumstances described here, these occasions would not seem to constitute serious violations, but I find them sufficient to offset the minimal evidence presented by Petitioner. Petitioner has not met her burden of establishing that she followed established procedures sufficiently to relieve her of liability.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $366.26 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
2 According to post office records, Petitioner's account should have contained $8,796.24, but only $8,429.98 was present when counted.
3 See Postal Operations Manual (POM) §126.24.