In the Matter of the Petition by ) April 6, 1999
)
GERARD J. MONAHAN, JR. )
3854 Bailey Avenue )
)
at )
)
Bronx, NY 10463-2504 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-65
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Gerard J. Monahan, Jr.
3854 Bailey Avenue
Bronx, NY 10463-2504
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: James Wolahan
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
James A. Farley Bldg. Room 505
421 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Gerard Monahan, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his supervisor on January 21, 1999. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $86.31 from Petitioner’s salary to recover for a shortage in his account, discovered by an audit on July 28, 1998.
A hearing was held in New York City on March 23, 1999. The Postal Service presented testimony from Frances Lawyer, the supervisor who conducted the July 28, 1998 audit. Mr. Monahan testified in his own behalf, and both sides presented some documentary evidence. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner, Gerard Monahan, has been a window clerk at the Planetarium Station Post Office in New York City since April 1998. A stamp stock account was assigned to him. (Tr. 28).1
2. The first audit of Petitioner’s account was conducted by his supervisor, Ms. Lawyer, on July 28, 1998. The account was short by $86.31. Mr. Monahan was present for the audit, and signed PS Form 3294 indicating that he agreed that the count was accurate. (Tr. 9-12).
3. The next audit of Petitioner’s account was done in November 1998, and showed an overage of approximately $84.00 (Tr. 17).
4. The drawer that Petitioner operates from when he is working as a window clerk is kept locked overnight in a vault. The normal procedure is for a clerk to remove the drawer from the vault, using a key possessed only by that clerk, upon arrival to work. The drawer is placed into the window counterline, where it can also be locked with the clerk’s key. This drawer contains cash, and whatever stamp stock the clerk needs to serve customers. The clerk also has a separate key for another section of the vault where his entire stamp stock is kept. At the close of the workday, the clerk returns the drawer to the vault. (Tr. 32-33).
5. In early March 1999, Ms. Lawyer did a key check of her clerks’ locks. This is required to be done annually, and was the first key check since Mr. Monahan was assigned to the window in April 1998. She found that another clerk’s key opened Mr. Monahan’s cash drawer. As a result, she immediately had the lock changed. Prior to this key check, Mr. Monahan was not aware that anyone else had a key that would unlock his drawer. (Tr. 25-28).
DECISION
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. 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 does not challenge the fact that his account was $86.31 short in July 1998, but makes two arguments that he should be relieved of liability. First, he argues that the overage on his next audit in November 1998 should be offset. Next, he argues that it was management’s failure that his cash drawer was not secure.
For an overage to be offset against a shortage, some relationship between the two must be shown. Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, §429.16. The reason we do not assume a relationship between two consecutive audits is that Petitioner’s account was artificially balanced after the July 28, 1998 audit, by placing the $86.31 shortage in "suspense," i.e., entering it into some other accounting code. This is standard procedure. Therefore, without some specific evidence to show a connection between the overage discovered in November and the shortage in July, there is no reason to believe there is any relationship, even though the amounts were relatively close.
On the second issue, however, Petitioner prevails. As Respondent argues, and Petitioner concedes, there is no evidence that the other clerk, or anyone else, actually used this key to gain access to Petitioner’s drawer. However, it is management’s responsibility to provide secure equipment and ensure that locks are not compromised. Handbook F-1, §151 and §416. This was not a situation where the employee was aware of a potential security problem and failed to bring it to management’s attention. Nor is it a situation where the evidence shows only a possibility that someone might have been able get into a Petitioner’s cash drawer. In a case such as this, where the Petitioner did not have exclusive control of his stamp stock for nearly a year, it is inappropriate to hold him strictly accountable for a shortage. It is not necessary that there be evidence that someone actually took some of his stock.
The Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $86.31 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge