November 30, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by DAMARIS F. BANKS Fort Washington Station 556 W. 158th Street at New York, NY 10032-9998 P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 00-345 and DCA 00-346 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Don W. Ryan 350 West 31st Street New York, NY 10001-2726 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Eileen R. Jimenez Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 380 West 33rd Street, Room 3505 New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Damaris F. Banks, filed two timely Petitions after receiving two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor on August 29, 2000. These Notices stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold a total of $263.95 from Petitioner's salary to recover for two shortages in her window clerk account. The two Petitions were consolidated into one case for hearing and decision.
A hearing was held in New York City on November 15, 2000.1 The Postal Service presented testimony from two supervisors, Willie Ford and Alan McLaughlin. Petitioner testified in her own behalf. Both sides also relied on documents previously filed, and on two additional documents presented by Respondent at the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Fort Washington Station in New York City. As such, she is assigned a credit account of stamp stock and cash for which she is accountable. (Tr. 8, PS Ex. 2).2
2. On December 20, 1999, Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Ford, conducted an audit of Petitioner's account and found it to be $122.70 short. Petitioner was present for the audit, but declined to sign the PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, that was completed by Mr. Ford. Petitioner noted that she had an overage on her previous audit and questioned whether there could be a connection. Mr. Ford told her that he could not offset one against the other without some evidence that there was a connection. (Tr. 9, 15, 22-25; Answer, Ex. E; PS Ex. 2).
3. On March 30, 2000, Mr. Ford conducted another audit of Petitioner's account and found it to be $141.25 short. Petitioner was present for the audit, and signed the PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 10, 22-23, 25; Answer, Ex. F; PS Ex. 2).
4. Petitioner's attendance records, PS Forms 3972, show that she was present for duty on December 20, 1999, and March 30, 2000. (PS Ex. 1).
5. On August 29, 2000, another supervisor, Mr. McLaughlin, issued two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner, one for each of the shortages. At the same time, he gave Petitioner two PS Forms 3239, Payroll Deduction Authorization. Petitioner signed a receipt for each of the Notices, and signed both of the Forms 3239, authorizing voluntary deductions from her salary.3 (Tr. 31-33, 44-46; Answer, Exs. A, B, I and J).
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.
Respondent argues that the two audits were properly conducted and that Petitioner has shown no reason why she should not be held liable. Petitioner's position is that she was not present for either of the audits in question, and was not aware of either shortage until presented with the Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on August 29. She asserts that the signature on the PS Form 3294 for the March 30, 2000 audit is not hers.
Mr. Ford's testimony was very straightforward and clear that he never conducted any audits of Petitioner's account when she was not present, and that she signed the March 30 Form 3294 in his presence. I find his testimony to be credible. I do not find Petitioner's testimony to be credible. Attendance records show she was at work on the two days in question (Finding of Fact #4), and nothing in the record suggests any reason why Mr. Ford would have done the audits in her absence. Her denial of the authenticity of her signature on the March 30 Form 3294 is particularly unpersuasive. That signature is remarkably similar to the four other signatures in the record that she acknowledged are hers (see Finding of Fact #5).
Respondent has carried its burden of proving losses from Petitioner's account. Petitioner presented no evidence that she followed established procedures, or any other evidence that would provide a basis for relieving her of liability under the standard quoted above. The Petitions are denied. Respondent may collect $263.95 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
2 References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." References to documents presented by the Postal Service at the hearing are "PS Ex._." References to documents attached to Respondent's Answer will be "Answer, Ex._."
3 By filing her Petitions challenging these alleged debts, Petitioner has revoked the voluntary authorizations. It is not necessary to inquire into why she signed the forms in the first place.