United States Postal Service(TM) 

In the Matter of the Petition by 	)   July 8, 1999
					)
ANGELA L. MONTAQUE			)
295A Pulaski Street			)
					)
	at				)
					)
Brooklyn, NY 11206-7205			)   P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-27


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Angela L. Montaque
					295A Pulaski Street
					Brooklyn, NY  11206-7204

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		James Wolahan
					Labor Relations Specialist
					United States Postal Service
					James A. Farley Building, Room 3505
					421 8th Avenue
					New York, NY  10199-9401

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Angela L. Montaque, filed a timely Petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. The Notice indicated Respondent's intent to withhold $536.02 from Petitioner's salary pursuant to a letter of demand issued in 1996. A hearing was held in New York City.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner is a window clerk at the Village Station in New York City (Answer, attachment (Att.) 1).

In February or March 1996, Petitioner's supervisor performed an audit on Petitioner's flexible credit.(1) The result of that audit indicated that there was a shortage in Petitioner's credit in the amount of $536.02. Petitioner's supervisor issued her a letter of demand following the audit, which letter indicated that Petitioner was indebted to Respondent in the amount of the shortage. (Att. 2, 5; Transcript, page (Tr.) 23).

In January 1999, Petitioner's supervisor issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner and Petitioner filed a timely Petition.

Paragraph 132 of the Post Office Accounting Procedures, Handbook F-1, applicable at the time of the shortage provided that,

"The postmaster consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." (Att. 9).

Under Article 28 of the applicable collective bargaining agreement, Respondent agreed to audit each employee's credit "no less frequently than once every four months." The agreement does not specify any consequences that flow from the failure to perform a timely audit. (Att. 7).

DECISION

Respondent's initial burden of proof is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which Petitioner was accountable. Petitioner concedes that the audit was accurate and that there was a shortage in her credit. In the absence of any evidence indicating that that shortage did not represent an actual loss, Respondent has met its burden.

The burden then shifts to Petitioner to provide evidence that she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties. The record in this matter contains no such evidence. Petitioner's only defense to the alleged debt is that Respondent failed to audit her accountability within the four-month period set out in the collective bargaining agreement (Finding 5). Under the circumstances of this case, my inquiry is limited to whether the untimeliness of the audit, assuming it was untimely, affected its accuracy or otherwise cast doubt on whether an actual loss occurred. In this instance, that inquiry is answered in the negative. At the hearing, Petitioner argued that had the audit been done within the required period, she might not have had the shortage. However, Petitioner offered no evidence in support of her argument, and the argument is rejected as speculative.

Accordingly, the Petition is denied. Respondent may withhold $536.02 from Petitioner's salary.




David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
1. There are conflicting indications on several documents in the record, and the parties disagree as to whether the audit was performed in February or March. If the audit was not performed until March, Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement (see Finding 5). However, as indicated below, under the facts of this case it is not necessary to resolve that conflict.