October 5, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by DALE E. TAYLOR 4624 Reinhardt Drive at Oakland, CA 94618-2948 P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 01-228-231 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Diana Scott 7700 Edgewater Drive Oakland, CA 94621-3095 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Glynis E. Hughes Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 1675 7th Street, Room 421 Oakland, CA 94615-9405
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Dale E. Taylor, also known as Alethea Taylor, filed Petitions in these cases after receiving four Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated June 11, 2001, from the Oakland, California Postmaster. These Notices stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold a total of $921.03 from Petitioner's salary to recover for shortages in her account on four separate occasions in 1996-1998.
The only issue raised in the original Petitions was Petitioner's claim that she believed she had already paid these alleged debts. Following a telephone conference on July 25, 2001, Petitioner and her representative were given additional time to locate pertinent records. In a telephone conference on August 6, 2001, Petitioner stated that she had been unable to locate any supporting records, but she also asserted defenses to the merits of the debt allegations. Respondent was then given time to file a supplement to its Answer, addressing the merits of the alleged debts, and Petitioner was directed to supplement her Petitions to state specifically her grounds for contesting the alleged debts.
In a third telephone conference on September 13, 2001, the parties agreed that these cases, which were consolidated, would be decided on written submissions, and the parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument. By Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference dated September 14, 2001, the parties were advised to submit sworn statements from persons having information supporting their respective positions, along with any relevant documents not already in the case file. Both parties submitted additional documents, including witness statements. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the times pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a window clerk at Laurel Station in Oakland, California. (Answer Supplement, Exs. 3-6).
2. On February 26, 1996, Petitioner's account was audited by her supervisor, J. Land, and found to be $108.30 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Answer Supplement, Exs. 3 and 4).
3. On December 13, 1996, Petitioner's account was audited by her supervisor, Willie Armstrong, and found to be $483.55 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Answer Supplement, Exs. 3 and 5).
4. On December 23, 1996, Petitioner gave Mr. Armstrong a memo stating that she had learned from a co-worker on December 21, 1996 that her stamp drawer in the safe could be opened easily with a knife. Petitioner demonstrated this to Mr. Armstrong, who then had a maintenance person fix the drawer the next day. Other co-workers had also observed the condition of Petitioner's drawer before it was repaired. (Petitioner's Supplement, Ex. 1-A; Armstrong Statement, attached to Respondent's September 24 submission; Biasca Statement and Evans Statement, attached to Petitioner's September 26 and September 27 submissions).
5. On December 30, 1997, Petitioner's account was audited by her supervisor, Willie Armstrong, and found to be $194.01 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Answer Supplement, Exs. 3 and 6).
6. Petitioner's audit history, PS Form 3368, lists fifteen audits of her account between May 1995 and December 1998. In addition to the three audits discussed above, this form includes an audit on September 26, 1998, noting a $135.17 shortage. (Answer Supplement, Ex. 3).
7. On June 11, 2001, Petitioner was issued four Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, one for each of the four shortages described in Findings 2, 3, 5 and 6 above.
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 that any specific dereliction or act of negligence by Petitioner caused the loss. 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.
In this case, Respondent's presentation of PS Forms 3294 for the audits of February 26, 1996, December 13, 1996, and December 30, 1997, all of which were signed by Petitioner and the supervisor indicating agreement with the accuracy of the counts, is sufficient to prove losses on those dates. As there is no PS Form 3294 or a statement from the supervisor who performed the count for the September 26, 1998 audit, however, Respondent has failed to prove a loss on that date. A PS Form 3368, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to prove a loss (see Finding #6).
The only issue raised by Petitioner that bears upon any of the alleged debts is the security issue discussed in Finding #4.1 It is management's responsibility to provide window clerks with adequate equipment and storage facilities with which to maintain the security of their stamp stock. A mere possibility that a stamp drawer might be accessed by unauthorized persons is not sufficient to relieve an accountable employee of liability. In this case, however, Petitioner demonstrated to her supervisor, Mr. Armstrong, shortly after the audit in December 1996, that her stamp drawer was not secure and the supervisor immediately had the drawer repaired. Her position is supported by Respondent's witness, Mr. Armstrong. The evidence on this point is sufficient to relieve Petitioner of liability for the December 13, 1996 shortage. There is no evidence, however, to show that this security problem had any bearing on the February 26, 1996 shortage or the December 30, 1997 shortage.
The Petition is granted in part and denied in part. Petitioner is liable for the loss of $108.30 disclosed by the February 26, 1996 audit, and the loss of $194.01 disclosed by the December 30, 1997 audit. Petitioner is not liable for the other losses. Respondent may collect $302.31 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge