June 26, 2001

In the Matter of the Petition by

NICOLE MITCHELL
325 Chapman Road

Hewitt, TX 76643-3333

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-134

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Nicole Mitchell
325 Chapman Road
Hewitt, TX 76643-3333

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Martha T. Vega
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
8401 Boeing Drive
El Paso, TX 79910-9407

Petitioner, Nicole Mitchell, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her postmaster on April 12, 2001. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $785.00 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in her account discovered on August 10, 1999.

Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions, and the parties were given the opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. With the Answer, Respondent filed a sworn declaration of the postmaster, Richard Garcia. Petitioner filed a letter as a supplement to her Petition, but did not submit any additional evidence or argument after the Answer was filed. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner, Nicole Mitchell, has been a window clerk at the Hewitt, Texas Post Office for 23 years. On August 10, 1999, the postmaster, Richard Garcia, conducted a regular periodic audit of Petitioner's account and found it to be $942.31 short. The opening balance was $7,449.57, but only $6,507.26 in cash and stamp stock was present. Petitioner participated in the count and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Garcia Declaration, Attachment 2).

2. Petitioner's audit history from May 1997 through December 1999 shows that she had four other shortages outside the tolerance limit. (Garcia Declaration, Attachment 2).

3. At the time pertinent to this case, the clerks at the Hewitt Post Office used an IRT (Integrated Retail Terminal) system to record all transactions and manage their accounts. Occasionally, an IRT terminal keyboard would malfunction or a computer disk would "crash." When this happened, clerk accounts were accurately reconstructed using paper receipts and the supervisor's computer disk, which maintained the total office accountability. (Garcia Declaration).

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. 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 position is simply that the August 10, 1999 audit shows a loss, Petitioner agreed to the accuracy of the count, and Petitioner has shown no basis for relieving her of liability.

In her Petition, Ms. Mitchell referred to disk crashes and keyboard problems, and some general security issues in the office. She also stated that because several clerks were short during the same time frame it is likely that something other than the clerks was responsible for the apparent shortages.

In a telephone conference before the Answer was filed, the burden of proof on each side was discussed and both parties were advised to file sworn statements from any persons who had information supporting their relative positions. Petitioner was also advised that she must submit some evidence to show how security problems or equipment failures may have affected the specific shortage in issue. Finally, Petitioner was advised that if she intended to argue that she routinely followed established procedures in managing her account and should be relieved of liability on that basis, she should submit evidence to support that argument. Petitioner has submitted no evidence at all.

Respondent's evidence as to the August 10, 1999 audit is sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the Postal Service suffered a loss of $942.31.¹  Petitioner has submitted nothing beyond a general reference to disk problems to raise doubt about the accuracy of the audit or the previously established balance. In the absence of any contradictory evidence from Petitioner, Mr. Garcia's explanation of action taken to overcome equipment failures is persuasive that equipment problems are unlikely to have caused a false shortage. (See Finding of Fact #3). Also, Petitioner's arguments regarding office security are not supported by any evidence.

As to whether Petitioner followed established procedures in managing her account, she makes no claim in this regard, and has submitted no evidence that would provide any basis for relieving her of liability under that provision of the standard of liability quoted above. In her letter filed as a supplement to the Petition, Petitioner reiterates the matter of disk problems and also that she quite often ends up with excess cash at the end of a day. She presented no evidence, however, as

to how either of these problems might have affected the August 10, 1999 shortage in her account.

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $785.00 from Petitioner's salary.