In the Matter of the Petition by ) October 26, 1999 ) LUIS SEGOVIA ) P.O. Box 304 ) ) at ) ) Greenwich, CT 06836-0304 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-371 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Luis Segovia P.O. Box 304 Greenwich, CT 06836-0304 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Timothy O'Keeffe Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 427 West Avenue Stamford, CT 06910-9411
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Luis Segovia, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated July 23, 1999, from the postmaster at Greenwich, Connecticut. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $460.01 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner's account disclosed in an audit on February 27, 1998.
A hearing was held in Stamford, Connecticut on October 13, 1999. The Postal Service presented testimony from Petitioner's supervisor, Richard Nemetz, who performed the audit on February 27, 1998, and from the Postmaster, Robert Pilkington. Mr. Segovia testified in his own behalf and also presented testimony from two other window clerks. Both sides also presented some documentary evidence, in addition to the documents attached to Respondent's Answer. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Greenwich, Connecticut Post Office. Since February 1996, he has been a "T-6," which is a supervisory clerk position. (Tr. 8-9, 23).(1) Petitioner was assigned a window credit of stamps and cash for conducting transactions with customers (Answer, Ex. 1).
2. On February 27, 1998, Petitioner's supervisor, Richard Nemetz, did a regular audit of Petitioner's account.(2) Petitioner participated in the count, and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that he agreed with the count. The account was short by $460.01. (Tr. 6-7; Answer, Ex. 2).
3. The window clerks have computer terminals at their workstations to record all sales transactions. On occasion, as keyboards get old, some keys tend to stick (Tr. 33, 58, 69-70). If a clerk did not notice this, or did not check to see that all items sold showed up on the computer screen, it is possible that the computer would not record some item in a multi-item sales transaction, and a customer might be charged less than the proper total (Tr. 33-36, 62-64). On March 10, 1998, Mr. Segovia returned a keyboard for repair (Tr. 32; Pet. Ex. 2).
4. On April 13, 1998, Mr. Segovia and Ms. McLaughlin, another clerk, discovered that an office adding machine produced an incorrect total when a column of eleven check amounts were added (Tr. 37-39, 74-75; Pet. Ex. 3). It is unclear whether this adding machine was used in doing the count of Petitioner's stock on February 27, 1998. There is a copy of a printed column of figures attached to the PS Form 3294 that recorded the February 27 count. Those figures were added by some machine and are added correctly. (Answer, Ex. 2-c).
DECISION
Petitioner argues that the failure of some equipment to work properly may have caused his shortage. His position is that clerks should be able to rely on their equipment and that he should not be held responsible for mechanical errors.
Respondent notes that Petitioner agrees he is accountable for his stamp stock and that the count done on February 27, 1998 was accurate. Therefore, Respondent argues, under the applicable rules Petitioner is strictly liable for the shortage. As to the matter of equipment failure, Respondent argues that it is too speculative to conclude that sticky keys or a faulty adding machine caused the shortage. Respondent also argues that if a clerk is aware that keyboard keys sometimes stick, the clerk is still accountable for his/her stock and has a duty to exercise the care necessary to see that all transactions are recorded accurately.
The issue here is not whether Mr. Segovia is an honest, loyal and hard-working employee. There is no evidence that he is not. The issue is over how to apply the standards of accountability and liability that are prescribed for Postal Service employees who manage large sums of cash and stamp stock. 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. If Respondent proves a loss, 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.
In this case, the audit on February 27, 1998 is sufficient to prove a loss. There is no evidence that it was not done properly, and Petitioner agreed that the count was accurate. Petitioner's argument that he should be relieved of liability because of faulty equipment fails on two grounds. First, the evidence is insufficient to establish a likelihood that Petitioner's shortage was caused by equipment failure. The matter of the sticky keyboards raises a mere possibility of error. That is not enough, and the evidence on the faulty adding machine proves no connection at all to Petitioner's shortage. Second, even if sticky keyboard keys made Petitioner's job more difficult, maintaining the security of his account while waiting for equipment to be repaired or replaced remained his responsibility. There is no evidence that sticky keys could have created errors that were undetectable to Petitioner. There is also no evidence that management refused to repair or replace faulty equipment. To the contrary, the evidence was that equipment was promptly sent in for repair when malfunctions were reported.
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 any specific evidence on this point, but the burden is on the employee and Petitioner failed to meet that burden in this case.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $460.01 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge