October 11, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by CHERI A. ABRAHAM 1466 Astor Avenue at Bronx, NY 10469-5847 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-291 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Cheri A. Abraham 1466 Astor Avenue Bronx, NY 10469-5847 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Pamela Smith-Watson Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 421 8th Avenue, Room 3505 New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Cheri Abraham, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor on July 7, 2000. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $83.27 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in her flexible credit account, discovered in an audit on September 23, 1999.
A hearing was held in New York City on September 14, 2000. The Postal Service presented testimony from Petitioner's supervisor, James Bumpass.
Petitioner testified in her own behalf. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Prior to the September 1999 audit that is the subject of this case, Petitioner had been a window clerk at the High Bridge Post Office for a little more than one year (Tr. 14).(1)
2. Before September 1999, all the audits of Petitioner's flexible credit account, approximately four audits, showed her to be within the $50.00 tolerance level allowed to window clerks. Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Bumpass, conducted a final audit of Petitioner's account on September 23, 1999, because Petitioner was leaving for another job. This audit showed the account to be $83.27 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that she agreed with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 7-9, 14, 18, 23; Answer, Ex. 1A-1E).
3. In May 1999, the High Bridge office changed to a new computer system for managing office finances and stamp stock accounts. Under the new system, when audits are done the procedure is to record the stamp stock portion of the count separately from the cash portion. The Form 3294 completed by Mr. Bumpass on September 23, 1999, shows the opening stamp stock balance, according to the records of the post office, to be $794.95, and that $711.68 was the amount of stock actually present. The difference, $83.27, is the debt alleged to be owed by
Petitioner. A separate page of the Form 3294 shows the opening balance for cash to be $100.95, and that $117.26 was actually present. (Tr. 15-16, 18; Answer, Ex. 1A and 1B).
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 her last audit before the September 23 audit was not done in accordance with the new procedure and that this could have caused her opening balance on September 23 to be incorrect. Specifically, she argues that stamps and cash were not counted and recorded separately on that previous audit, and she believes, therefore, that the cash portion of the September 23 audit should be added to the total for the stamp stock ($711.68), leaving her with a small overage, rather than an $83.27 shortage. Petitioner's position here is not entirely clear, nor is it supported by any evidence in the record. There are no documents from her previous audit in the record, and the Form 3294 for the September 23 audit shows that the total of all the different denominations of stamps correctly add up to $711.68. The Form 3294 also shows that the cash was counted separately, and I can find no basis for concluding that the cash portion ($117.26) should have been added to the stamp portion, because the Form 3294 shows a separate opening balance for the cash portion. To add the two together would appear to give Petitioner credit for the cash portion twice. The $16.31 cash overage should, however, be offset from the stamp shortage, making the net loss only $66.96.
Petitioner also raised the issue of whether she should be relieved of liability because she followed established procedures in performing her duties. There was very little evidence presented on this point, but I find it sufficient for Petitioner to prevail. She testified that she was always very careful in handling her money and stamp stock, and both she and her supervisor testified that she had regularly been within tolerance on her previous audits. The Postal Service presented no evidence to contradict this evidence. Therefore, Petitioner has carried her burden, under the standard quoted from the F-1 Handbook, of showing that she followed established procedures in performing her duties.
The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect money from Petitioner's salary on account of this alleged debt.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge