August 17, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by MICHAEL E. FORSTER 3438 Audubon Avenue at Alexandria, VA 22306-2917 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-187 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Michael E. Forster 3438 Audubon Avenue Alexandria, VA 22306-2917 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Donna Williams Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 8409 Lee Highway Merrifield, VA 22081-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Michael Forster, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated May 16, 2000, from his supervisor. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $93.90 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in his flexible credit account, discovered on January 11, 2000.
Petitioner elected a hearing on written submissions. Petitioner filed additional evidence and argument, beyond what was included with the Petition. Respondent relied on the documents filed with the Answer. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a window clerk at the Community Branch Post Office in Alexandria, Virginia since November 1999. At that time, he was assigned stamp stock with a total accountability of $13,480.75. (Petitioner's statement; Answer, Ex. 3).
2. When Petitioner's account was audited on January 11, 2000, it was found to be $939.74 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, indicating that he agreed with the accuracy of the count. (Answer, Ex. 5).
3. Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for $939.74, and he filed a grievance under the provisions of the labor/management national agreement. On Petitioner's behalf, the union argued that Petitioner should be relieved of liability because there had been many problems with the computer system that Petitioner used to manage his account. On May 9, 2000, the grievance was settled as follows:
"Management has reviewed the information provided regarding the documented problems with the grievants' [sic] specific POS terminal at Community Branch. Although the union has provided no specific correlation between the POS malfunctions and grievants [sic] shortage, the grievant will be responsible for $93.90. Management will waive the liability for the remaining sum of $845.84."
4. Petitioner declined to accept this settlement, and the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued on May 16, 2000. (Answer, Ex. 8).
5. The computer system known as POS 1 was installed at Community Branch in January 1999. During Petitioner's tenure as a window clerk, some of the individual terminals used by the clerks, including Petitioner's terminal, did not always work properly. Occasionally, in the midst of a transaction with a customer, the computer screen would turn blue and the terminal would become inoperable. It is not known for certain what effect these so-called "blue screen events" had on the accurate management of a clerk's account. (Petition; Supplement to Petition, attachments).
6. Since Petitioner has been a window clerk, he has regularly followed established procedures in managing his stamp stock. This includes following daily close-out procedures and completing PS Form 1412s (daily financial transactions) each day, and following supervisors' instructions regarding handling of computer terminal problems. (Forster Declaration, July 26, 2000; Giusti Declaration, July 26, 2000; Flowers Declaration, July 26, 2000).
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 "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." 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.
Petitioner argues that, because of the documented computer problems, it is likely that there has been no real financial loss to the Postal Service. He points to management's willingness to relieve him of liability for 90% of the supposed shortage. Respondent argues that Petitioner has not shown that the computer malfunctions caused his shortage. It is not necessary to resolve this issue. Petitioner has submitted evidence, uncontradicted by Respondent, to show that he followed established procedures in carrying out his duties. Petitioner's own sworn statement, supported by the sworn statements of two co-workers, each of whom was responsible for reviewing his daily financial reports, is sufficient to carry his burden of proof. Accordingly, the Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $93.90 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge