September 28, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by JOEL R. MUELLER 1950 Applewood Drive at Lakewood, CO 80215-2524 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-196 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Chris Mueller 1950 Applewood Drive Lakewood, CO 80215-2524 APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT: Ralph E. Williamson Jon P. Inglis Labor Relations Specialists United States Postal Service 7500 East 53rd Place, Room 2259 Denver, CO 80266-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Joel R. Mueller, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on June 3, 2000 from the Manager, Accounting Services. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $683.08 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner's stamp stock account.
A hearing was held in Denver, Colorado on September 7, 2000. The Postal Service presented testimony from Lawrence George, Petitioner's former supervisor, Joyce Amos, Petitioner's current supervisor, and Leatrice Woolen, a facilitator for the Postal Service's new computer system. Petitioner presented testimony from four other clerks with whom he has worked. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a window clerk at the Cherry Creek Station in Denver since at least August 1995. As a window clerk he was assigned a credit account of cash and stamp stock. (Answer, Ex. 3).1
2. Window clerk accounts are required to be audited at least every four months. Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Amos, conducted a regularly scheduled audit of Petitioner's account on April 28, 2000, and found the account to be $683.08 short. Petitioner participated in the audit and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that he agreed with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 13-14, 27-30; Answer, Ex. 1).
3. Petitioner's audit history shows that he has had shortages on eight of his last eleven audits, from July 1997 through April 2000, in amounts ranging from $82.00 to $2,434.00. Petitioner filed grievances on several of these after receiving letters of demand, and action on those grievances is still pending. (Tr. 31-32, 37-39; Answer, Ex. 2).
4. At the end of each day, each window clerk turns in a PS Form 1412 to a clerk designated as the "1412 Clerk," along with all daily receipts for transactions other than stamp sales. There are no receipts for stamp sales. The Form 1412 is a record of all these transactions. The 1412 clerk is required to check the accuracy of the Form 1412 against the receipts. (Tr. 20-22, 79-80).
5. Petitioner's reputation among his fellow window clerks is that he is very careful in keeping track of his stamp stock account and in locking his stamp drawer whenever he is away from the window. Also, his daily Form 1412s very rarely contain errors. (Tr. 69-70, 73, 79, 83, 88).
6. In approximately August/September 1998, the Cherry Creek Post Office was converted to a new computer system, called POS ONE, that is used by the clerks in making sales to customers and in managing their stamp stock accounts. In the early stages of implementation of this new system nationwide, equipment-induced errors caused false shortages in some accounts. In September 1999, guidance to the field from Postal Service Headquarters stated that consideration should be given to waiving liability for clerk shortages if a clerk was on the new system between January 1998 and September 1999, and it could not be shown that the shortage was unrelated to system problems. There is no evidence in this case that such problems existed in the Denver area during the time relevant to Petitioner's April 2000 shortage. (Tr. 55-61, 65; Pet. Ex. 1-4).
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. In this case, the audit of Petitioner's account on
April 28, 2000, establishes a loss of $683.08 (Finding of Fact #2).
The evidence of record does not support Petitioner's argument that his April 2000 shortage was caused by problems with the POS ONE system. Therefore, the outcome of this case hinges on whether Petitioner has carried his burden of showing that he followed established procedures in managing his stamp stock. Petitioner's argument on this issue is well-supported by the testimony of four co-workers, and to some extent by the testimony of a former supervisor (Tr. 23). In opposition, Respondent points to Petitioner's very poor audit history. It is noted, however, that four of Petitioner's earlier audit shortages, September 1998 - September 1999, occurred after his office went on the POS ONE system and during the time frame when clerk shortages were of doubtful integrity because of computer system problems. On balance, therefore, I conclude that Petitioner's evidence is sufficient to carry his burden of showing that he should be relieved of liability under the standard quoted from the F-1 Handbook.
The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $683.08 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge