In the Matter of the Petition by ) July 13, 1999 ) JUDY M. TEXLEY ) 7237 237th Avenue NE ) ) at ) ) Redmond, WA 98053-7914 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-179 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Don Webb P.O. Box 84331 Seattle, WA 98124-5631 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Carol A. Manago Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 415 First Avenue North P.O. Box 90204 Seattle, WA 98109-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION OF 1982
Petitioner, Judy M. Texley, filed a timely Petition for a hearing 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 advised Petitioner that the Postal Service intended to make deductions from her salary to recover an alleged debt to Respondent of $654.54 resulting from a shortage discovered in an audit of Petitioner’s credit.
An oral hearing was held in Seattle on June 23, 1999, at which the parties presented evidence and argument in support of their positions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a window clerk in the Redmond, Washington Post Office (Respondent’s Exhibits ("RX") 2, 3).
2. In late 1997 through early January 1998, Petitioner’s supervisor became concerned about the number of errors Petitioner was making on her PS Forms 1412, the daily report of window transactions filled out by window clerks at the end of the day (Transcript of Hearing, pages ("Tr.") 22-25, 37-38, 41; RX 9).
3. The supervisor made a record of the errors, and in early January 1998, he gave Petitioner instructions regarding the proper completion of Form 1412. After receiving that instruction, Petitioner made only occasional errors on the form—no more than would be expected for window clerks. (Tr. 22-25, 36-37, 41-43, 67; RX 9).
4. In a count of Petitioner’s window credit on March 13, 1998, her accountability was within tolerance (Petitioner’s Exhibit ("PX") 2; RX 3, 8).
5. In the next audit of her accountability, on July 10, 1998, a shortage of $984.26 was discovered. Petitioner demonstrated her agreement with the accuracy of the count by signing the PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count Summary, on which the results of the count were recorded. (Tr. 27-30, 34, 61, 66-67, 81-82; RX 2, 8).
6. Petitioner’s union grieved the $984.26 Letter of Demand issued to Petitioner, and eventually management and the union settled the grievance by agreeing to allow Petitioner credit in the amount of $336.72 for an overage in that amount that had occurred in her December 6, 1997 audit. That reduced the amount Respondent claimed from Petitioner to $654.54. (Tr. 20-21, 30-31; RX 1, 3, 4, 8, 9).
7. On February 23, 1999, Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for the amount of $654.54 (RX 5).
8. When payment was not forthcoming, on March 23, 1999, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets advising of its intention to deduct the amount of $654.54 from her salary (PX 1; RX 6, 7).
9. Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Hearing challenging Respondent’s intended collection from her salary.
10. Petitioner is aware of the established procedures applicable to window clerks, and she follows them. She locks her drawer during the day when she leaves it. She is careful in the performance of her duties. When counting and transmitting her cash at the end of each day, she makes few mistakes—no more than any other clerk in the office. (Tr. 45, 91-93, 94, 98, 103-104, 106, 113, 116-117, 119).
11. Postal Service regulations applicable to a window clerk’s responsibility to repay shortages in their window credit provide,
"The postmaster or responsible manager consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other career employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." (PX 15, Postal Service F-1 Handbook, Post Office Accounting Procedures, November 1996, Section 141).
DECISION
Respondent argues that Petitioner is liable because the July 10, 1998 shortage in her window credit was not disputed. It also contends that Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of her duties.
Petitioner argues that she should not be held responsible because Respondent failed in its duty to provide her proper training to perform her duties as a window clerk. She also argues that there were malfunctions of her computer workstation that may have affected the shortage. Finally, she argues that she follows established procedures and exercises reasonable care in performance of her duties as a window clerk.
Respondent has met its burden of demonstrating that there was a loss by showing that the July 10, 1998 count of Petitioner’s credit was accurate and that the count disclosed a shortage in excess of the amount claimed. (Finding 5). Respondent having made this showing, the burden then shifts to Petitioner to show that she followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving her of liability. (See Finding 11).
The evidence in the record demonstrates that Petitioner followed established procedures in the performance of her duties. (Finding 10). This conclusion is based on the testimony of a fellow clerk who has worked at the window next to Petitioner’s since 1997, and Petitioner’s own testimony regarding how she performs her duties. (Finding 10). Additionally, the clerk in the Redmond Post Office responsible for collecting the day’s receipts from all of the window clerks at the end of the day testified that Petitioner made very few mistakes and was as careful as any of the other clerks in the office.
To counter this, Respondent offered evidence that in late 1997 and early 1998, Petitioner made many mistakes in completing the daily financial record for clerks. (Finding 2). However, these errors ceased in January 1998 when the supervisor gave Petitioner further instruction on the proper preparation of the form. (Finding 3). The passage of six months and the intervention of an in-tolerance audit (Finding 4) between the occurrence of these errors and the July 10, 1998 audit defeat Respondent’s argument that the errors indicate a failure to follow established procedures at a time relevant to the loss at issue in this proceeding.
Accordingly, the Petition is granted.(1) Respondent may not collect the claimed debt from Petitioner’s salary.