October 19, 2000
In the Matter of the Petition by
WES CRANK
Parkrose Station
at
4048 N. E. 122nd Avenue
Portland, OR 97230-1335
P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-149
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Wes Crank
4048 N.E. 122nd Avenue
Portland, OR 97230-1335
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Kathleen Chance
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
P.O. Box 2089
Portland, OR 97208-2089
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Wes Crank, filed a Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating the Postal Service’s intention to deduct $229.52 from his salary to recover for a shortage occurring in Petitioner’s window credit.
At Petitioner’s request, an oral hearing was conducted. The parties, witnesses and court reporter were at the Main Post Office in Portland, Oregon, and the Hearing Official participated by telephone from the Judicial Officer Department in Arlington, Virginia. The parties presented documents and testimony of witnesses and made oral closing arguments after the presentation of evidence was concluded.
The following findings of fact are based on the documents submitted and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a window clerk since 1987 (Transcript of Hearing, Pages ("Tr.") 29, 55). As a window clerk in Respondent’s Parkrose Station in Portland, Oregon, Petitioner had a credit of stamps assigned to him for his sales to customers ranging at various times from $4,000 to $10,000 in value (Respondent’s Exhibits ("RX") A, B, C).
2. Petitioner’s stamp stock was replenished through requisitions from the main stamp stock managed by his supervisor (Tr. 41, 43-44, 53). However, from time to time, Petitioner obtained stamps directly from other clerks and from time to time supplied stamps directly to other clerks. This was usually done when a customer at the window requested stamps that the clerk did not have in his stamp drawer, and a quick exchange with another clerk would be made to obtain the stamps for the customer. (Tr. 24-25, 36, 39-40, 50, 56; RX E).
3. Direct exchanges between clerks were discouraged, but if they were done, the exchanges were to be recorded on PS Form 17, a Postal Service stamp requisition form that officially records the transfer of stock. However, Petitioner exchanged stamps with other clerks and did not record the transactions on Form 17. Petitioner knew that these unrecorded exchanges of stamps between clerks were violations of established Postal Service and Parkrose Station procedures. (Tr. 25-26, 29-30, 36, 39, 42, 48-49, 52-53, 56).
4. On July 21, 1998, Petitioner and his supervisor counted Petitioner’s stamps and found that he had on hand $229.52 less in stock than the station records reflected he should have had. The results of the count were recorded on PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary. Petitioner signed the Form 3294 indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 21-22, 57; RX A).
5. Once the count was completed, the shortage of $229.52 was put into a suspense account at the station, and Petitioner’s window credit was brought back into balance. Petitioner’s supervisor issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand on July 21, 1998, for the amount of $229.52. (Tr. 22-24, 57; RX B).
6. The next count of Petitioner’s credit, on October 14, 1998, resulted in an overage of $175.61 (Tr. 23; RX C).
7. On March 23, 2000, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating that Respondent intended to make involuntary deductions from Petitioner’s salary to satisfy the $229.52 debt Respondent claimed. Petitioner received the Notice on April 3, 2000. (Tr. 15-16, 54-55, 69; RX I).
8. No earlier than April 21, 2000, Petitioner filed a request for a hearing regarding the July 21, 1998 shortage (Petition).
9. For a period of time, including the time preceding the July 1998 audit, Petitioner had to store some of his stamps in an envelope drawer because Respondent did not provide him with sufficient space in the safe. The envelope drawer is not as secure as compartments in the safe normally used to store stock overnight, but only Petitioner had access to the locked envelope drawer, and there was never any evidence that the drawer had been tampered with. (Tr. 26-28, 32-34, 37, 40-42, 47, 60; RX G).
10. Window clerks are responsible for losses to the window credit assigned to them. They 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, Section 141.
11. Under certain circumstances, a clerk with a shortage in his accountability may receive credit for an overage in another account in the office, and possibly for an overage in his account at a preceding or succeeding count of his stock. However, to receive credit, he must demonstrate the existence of a relationship between the shortage and overage. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, Section 429.16.
DECISION
Motion to Dismiss
Respondent argues that the Petition should be dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within fifteen days after Petitioner received the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. Postal Service regulations require an employee to file a petition for hearing under the Debt Collection Act within fifteen days after receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets if he wishes a hearing. 39 C.F.R. §961.4 (a); Employee and Labor Relations Manual 452.336.a. However, the Hearing Official may determine a late filing does not waive the employee’s right to a hearing when good cause for the delay is shown. See 39 C.F.R. §961.10. Petitioner stated that after receiving the Notice, he attempted to find out information regarding whether the debt had previously been grieved and to obtain information from the personnel and human resources departments about this two-year-old shortage. Although we do not condone late filing, Petitioner has shown good cause for the very short delay that occurred.
Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is denied.
Merits
Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which Petitioner is responsible. Respondent is not required to prove any specific dereliction or act of negligence by Petitioner. Here, a properly conducted inventory, with which Petitioner agreed, demonstrated a loss of $229.52 (Finding 4). Petitioner raised no grounds for challenging the accuracy of the count and raised no other reason why the result of the count should not be accepted as the loss Respondent suffered.
Petitioner argues that he should receive credit for the $175.61 overage discovered in his window credit in the next count of his credit (Finding 6). However, such offsets are permitted only if a relationship between the shortage and the subsequent overage has been shown (Finding 11). Crediting the overage is not automatic. Petitioner offered no evidence that would suggest a relationship between the shortage in July and the overage discovered in the next count. Accordingly, he is not entitled to an offset against the amount of the shortage.
Also, Petitioner suggests that Respondent’s failure to provide him with adequate storage space in the safe for his stock is a basis for relieving him of liability for the shortage (Finding 9). However, Petitioner had sole access to the drawer, and the drawer was not tampered with (Finding 9). There was no showing that storage of his stamps in the envelope drawer had any bearing on the July 21, 1998 shortage at issue in this proceeding.
Respondent having established that it suffered a loss in the amount of $229.52, the burden shifts to Petitioner to show that he followed established procedures in managing his credit (Finding 10). In this case, Petitioner admitted and presented evidence to demonstrate that it was his practice to exchange stamp stock with other window clerks when necessary to provide customers with the stamps they requested. He did not follow what he knew to be established procedures requiring that these exchanges be recorded on Form 17. (Findings 2, 3). Accordingly, he has not met his burden of showing he followed established procedures in managing his window credit.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $229.52 from Petitioner’s salary.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge