December 4, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by AILEEN M. KREWSON 730 Crenshaw Drive at Hemet, CA 92543-8044 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-405 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Aileen M. Krewson 730 Crenshaw Drive Hemet, CA 92543-8044 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, Aileen M. Krewson, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor on September 25, 2000. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $59.58 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in her window credit account.
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. The parties were given the opportunity to file additional evidence and argument, beyond what was filed with the Petition and the Answer. Petitioner filed additional material. Respondent relied on the evidence filed with the Answer. 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 Hemet Post Office in Hemet, California. She also works as a window clerk at Yale, another station in Hemet. As such, she is assigned credit accounts of stamp stock and cash for which she is accountable. (Petition; Petition supplement).
2. On December 23, 1999, Petitioner's Hemet account was audited by her supervisor, Carol Landriscina, and found to have a $64.09 overage. She was audited again by Ms. Landriscina on March 29, 2000, and found to be $59.58 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, on March 29, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of that count. (Answer, Exs. 4 and 5; Petition supplement, Ex. 4A).
3. On two other audits at Hemet, and on four audits at Yale, all in 1999/2000, Petitioner's accounts were within tolerance. (Answer, Ex. 5; Petition supplement, Ex. 8B).
4. In managing her stamp stock accounts, Petitioner was routinely careful to follow the procedures in which she was trained, by carefully counting stamps that were issued to her, always locking her drawer when she was away from the window counter, and always keeping her keys in her possession. (Petition; Petition supplement, Exs. 1A, 1B, and 1C).
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 makes several arguments, some substantive, some procedural, but only one of them need be addressed. Petitioner challenges Respondent's proof of loss, but assuming that a loss has been proved, Petitioner has met her burden of proof under the standard from the F-1 Handbook, quoted above, in showing that she followed established procedures. In addition to her own statement that she always exercised care in safeguarding her stock, and that she always counted stock when it was issued to her, Petitioner submitted written statements from three co-workers who attest to her care and diligence in following required procedures. Her audit history also supports her argument. Respondent presented nothing to contradict this evidence.
The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $59.58 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge