In the Matter of the Petition by	)   March 3, 1999
					)
REKHA DALAL				)
1677 Scott Street			)
					)
at					)
					)
Glendale Heights, IL  60139-2066	)   P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-15


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Rekha Dalal
					1677 Scott Street
					Glendale Heights, IL  60139-2066

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Michael Fuechtmann
					Labor Relations Specialist
					United States Postal Service
					500 E. Fullerton Ave.
					Cold Stream, IL 60199-9401

Petitioner, Rekha Dalal, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated December 31, 1998. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $73.20 from Petitioner’s salary to recover for a shortage in her flexible credit account, discovered by an audit on January 3, 1998. The actual shortage was $146.41. Following a grievance by Petitioner under the pertinent Labor/Management Agreement, Petitioner’s union and the Postal Service reached a partial settlement agreement on September 30, 1998.

This agreement called for Petitioner to pay one-half of the shortage - $73.20. She did not consent to the agreement, however, and under the rules applicable to such situations, the Postal Service elected to collect the $73.20 under Debt Collection Act procedures. Once the employee files a petition for hearing under Debt Collection Act procedures, the applicable rules permit the Postal Service to then allege the full amount of the shortage.⁽¹⁾ The Postal Service did so in this case and notified Petitioner of that intention. Therefore, the amount in issue in this proceeding is $146.41.

Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions, and the parties were given an opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that submitted with the Petition and the Answer. Respondent filed two additional documents, but Petitioner filed nothing further. Neither party submitted any sworn statements of witnesses, as suggested by the Orders of January 21, 1999, and February 10, 1999. The following findings of fact are based on the materials submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner, Rekha Dalal, is a window clerk at the Addison, Illinois Post Office. She has had an assigned stamp stock account since 1991 (PS Forms 3368, attached to Petition).

2. Postal regulations require that an audit of a window clerk’s account be done by a supervisor at least every 4 months ((Handbook F-1, Post Office

Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §429.1; APWU National Agreement, Article 28, §1E)).

3. Petitioner’s account was audited on August 19, 1997. Therefore, her next audit had to be done by December 19, 1997. (Answer, Ex. 8). Because she was on leave during the entire month of December, a co-worker previously designated by Ms. Dalal witnessed the audit. This was in accordance with Postal Service regulations and the National Agreement, which provide that the employee should have the opportunity to be present, but that a witness designated by the employee will be present if the employee is unavailable (Handbook F-1, §426.2; APWU National Agreement, Article 28, §1C).

4. This audit was conducted on December 18, 1997, and Petitioner’s account was found to be short by $147.48. A second supervisor performed a second count, using the same witness, which confirmed the same shortage. When Petitioner returned from leave she asked for a recount, which was done on January3, 1998. This time the shortage was $146.41. (Answer, Ex. 9). A letter of demand for that amount was issued and, as noted above, a grievance procedure followed, and eventually this Petition was filed.

5. The file contains no documents to show that Ms. Dalal agreed to the accuracy of any of these counts at the time they were done, but she has not challenged the fact that the January 3, 1998 count accurately showed a shortage of $146.41

6. Since being assigned a stamp credit in 1991, Petitioner had been audited 20 times before the December 1997 audit. Three times she had small shortages, and several times she had small overages, but she was within the allowed tolerance each time. (PS Forms 3368, attached to Petition).

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), §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 $146.41 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 first argues that the audit was improper because she was not present. She says that management knew well in advance that she would be unavailable on her audit due date and, therefore, the audit should have been conducted before she went on vacation. There is no requirement in postal regulations for management to do that. The December 18, 1997 audit, with the designated witness present, was done in accordance with established procedure.

Petitioner also argues that it was a security violation that the locks on her stamp drawer were not changed after her stamp stock was counted by other people in her absence. It is not clear from my reading of the provision she cites, Handbook F-1, §426.2, that this is required. Even if it is, the shortage was already established and there is no evidence to suggest that failure to change the locks affected the shortage in any way. Petitioner also points to other alleged security problems that had occurred previously, but there is no evidence to connect any of them to the shortage in her account. Likewise the procedural defects she cites, in regard to the Letter of Demand and other actions, are in no way related to her shortage.

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 party addressed this issue in any depth, but Petitioner did assert that she has always exercised reasonable care in managing her stock, and presented the record of her audit history. This record, which demonstrates that she has not had a previous shortage beyond the tolerance limits, is some evidence that she has followed established procedures. In the absence of any contradictory evidence from Respondent, or any comment on the issue at all, it is sufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of proof under the standard set forth in Handbook F-1, §141.

The Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $146.41 from Petitioner’s salary.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge