December 12, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by MARIE J. HALPIN 2494 W. Main Street, SPC 124 at Barstow, CA 92311-3659 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-367 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Marie J. Halpin 2494 W. Main Street, SPC 124 Barstow, CA 92311-3659 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Mark B. Duffy Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service P.O. Box 19001 San Bernardino, CA 92423-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Marie J. Halpin, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her Installation Head on September 13, 2000. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,139.54 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in her stamp credit account.
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. Both parties filed additional evidence and argument, beyond what was included with the Petition and the Answer. Respondent's submission includes sworn declarations from the postmaster, Scott Bower, and a supervisor, Victor Maldonado. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Barstow, California Post Office. As such, she is assigned a credit account of stamp stock and cash for which she is accountable. (Petition; Answer, Exs. 5 and 6).
2. On August 27, 1999, the Barstow Postmaster, Scott Bower, conducted a regular periodic audit of Petitioner's account and found it to be $1,115.92 short. Mr. Bower conducted a recount on August 30, 1999, and the shortage was found to be $1,139.54. Petitioner participated in both counts and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, on August 30, 1999, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the second count. Mr. Bower issued Petitioner a letter of demand for $1,139.54 on August 30. (Answer, Exs. 2 and 4; Bower Declaration).
3. On September 23, 1999, Mr. Bower saw Petitioner leave her workstation without locking her stamp drawer as required. On September 24, 1999, Mr. Bower and Mr. Maldonado interviewed Petitioner about this incident and her August 30 shortage. Petitioner does not deny the September 23 incident, but denies telling them that there may have been other times she left her drawer unlocked while away from the window, as Mr. Maldonado says in his statement.1 During this interview, Petitioner raised a non-specific security issue about the way stock was issued to clerks. She had not previously reported any problem in this regard to management. (Bower Declaration; Maldonado Declaration; Answer, Ex. 9).
4. On October 13, 1999, Postmaster Bower issued Petitioner a Letter of Warning about her responsibility for maintaining the security of her cash and stamp stock. This letter cited the August 30 shortage and the September 23 incident. (Answer, Ex. 3).
5. Petitioner's recent audit history, prior to the August 30, 1999 audit, shows that she had two small overages beyond the $50 tolerance level on May 25 and February 23, 1999, and a $817.95 shortage on July 14, 1998. (Answer, Ex. 5).
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's evidence in this case is sufficient to prove that an audit was properly conducted and that there was a loss from Petitioner's account. Respondent also argues that the September 23, 1999 incident and Petitioner's admission that she may have left her workstation without locking her drawer rebut Petitioner's claim that she followed established procedures in managing her stamp stock.
Petitioner refers to security problems, but she is not at all specific, and she has submitted no evidence to support her claim or to show how any security problem may have affected her accountability. Petitioner also asserts that she always followed required procedures in keeping her drawers and cabinets locked. Again, she has submitted no supporting evidence and even her own statements are not sworn, although the parties were directed to file sworn statements. On the other hand, Respondent has filed two sworn statements that I find to be credible concerning the September 23 incident. This, together with Petitioner's audit history, sufficiently rebuts Petitioner's assertion that she always followed prescribed procedures.
Respondent has carried its burden of proving a loss from Petitioner's account. Petitioner has not carried her burden of showing that she followed established procedures in managing her account, or of showing any other basis for relief from liability. Therefore, the Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $1,139.54 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge