June 14, 2001

In the Matter of the Petition by

ANDREA D. QUINN
241 S. Dugan Road

Urbana, OH 43078-9780

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 01-76and DCA 01-77

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
S. Todd Brecount, Esq.
Houston, Harris & Denkewalter, LLC
One Monument Square, Suite 200
P.O. Box 913
Urbana, OH 43078-0913

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
William G. Campbell
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
1591 Dalton Avenue, Room 209
Cincinnati, OH 45234-9401

Petitioner, Andrea D. Quinn, filed timely Petitions after receiving two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on February 20, 2001, and February 23, 2001. The Notices stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $5,330.31 and $1,622.20, respectively, from Petitioner’s salary to recover alleged shortages in her window credit and vending machine accountability at the Enon, Ohio Post Office.

Petitioner elected a hearing on written submissions and both parties were given the opportunity to file evidence and arguments in addition to that contained in the Petition and Postal Service Answer. Only Respondent availed itself of the opportunity to do so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. On December 23, 2000, Petitioner was assigned as the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Enon, Ohio Post Office. She reported to the post office on December 26, 2000. Upon reporting, the Enon Postmaster (who was going on extended sick leave) transferred to her responsibility for vending machine stock, in the amount of $1,767.47, as well as a window credit of $22,759.50 in stamp stock. Petitioner fully participated in the count of the stock being transferred to her and concurred in the amounts being transferred.

2. The amount of window credit transferred to Petitioner, $22,759.50, is unusually large. However, Petitioner was to use this stock both for sales by her to Postal customers, as well as to replenish the depleted stamp stock of other window clerks at the post office. Accountability for unit reserve stock at the post office was not transferred to her, and she had no responsibility for the unit reserve stock. Instead, the postmaster retained responsibility for the unit reserve stock and periodically came to the post office and replenished her window credit from the unit reserve stock. (Petition; Declaration of Harry L. Harvill; Respondent’s Exhibits 1-1 to 3-1).

3. The postmaster returned to the post office three times in January 2001, and issued Petitioner $18,898.00 in stamp stock on January 8, $11,604.00 on January 22, and $7,518.00 on January 26, 2001 (Respondent’s Exhibits 3-2 to 3-4).

4. On February 5, 2001, the entire Enon Post Office was audited. This audit disclosed that Petitioner’s window credit was short $5,330.31 and that her vending machine accountability was short $1,622.20. Petitioner had been placed on administrative leave on January 31, 2001, and did not participate in these audits.¹ (Declarations of Gregory J. Ball and Harry L. Harvill).

5. In conjunction with the February 5, 2001 audit of the Enon Post Office, security measures at the post office, and the security of Petitioner’s stamp credit were reviewed and found to be satisfactory (Declarations of Debra S. McAfee and Mark A. Fiske).

DECISION

Contentions of the Parties

Respondent argues that Petitioner has not disputed the existence and amount of the shortages in her accounts at the Enon, Ohio Post Office and should, therefore, be held liable to the Postal Service to repay those amounts. Petitioner's only argument against liability is that the Postal Service did not follow proper procedures in transferring to her the OIC responsibility for the Enon Post Office. In this regard, Petitioner argues that the locks were not changed and she was not given keys to the cash drawers; the safe combination was not changed; and space was not provided to her in the safe to secure her postal stock.

Respondent’s burden of proof, in a case of an unexplained shortage such as this, is to establish that a loss occurred and to show that Petitioner was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. Petitioner does not dispute that she was accountable for the window credit that was found to be short $5,330.31. When a properly conducted audit shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt of the accuracy of the audit or previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may not have been an actual loss. Richard G. Dreher, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-233 (Sept. 2, 1997). In this case there is no persuasive evidence to rebut the findings of the audit conducted on February 5, 2001, and Respondent has met its burden of establishing a loss to the Postal Service of $5,330.31 from the window credit held by Petitioner at the Enon Post Office.

Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence of security failures at the Enon Post Office that may have led to the shortage in her account. In fact, during the February 5, 2001 audit, security at the post office was reviewed and found to be satisfactory (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 5).

Petitioner’s complaints concerning the turnover of OIC responsibilities at the post office relate to assuming responsibility for the entire post office and are not relevant to the issue in this Petition. Respondent is only seeking repayment from Petitioner of the shortage in the specific account assigned to her and Petitioner does not dispute her responsibility for this account.

Accordingly, this Petition is denied.

The standard of liability for losses from vending machines, unlike losses from a window credit, is not a strict liability standard. It requires evidence of negligence or wrongdoing by the employee. See Beverly M. Dennis, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-107 (May 22, 1997).

Respondent has not offered any evidence of theft or embezzlement by Petitioner, or that the vending machine shortage was the result of her negligence. Therefore, she cannot be held liable for the $1,622.20 shortage found in her vending machine accountability at the Enon Post Office.

Accordingly, this Petition is granted.

Petitioner is responsible for the $5,330.31 shortage found in her window credit accountability, and Respondent may collect this amount from Petitioner. However, Petitioner is relieved of responsibility for the $1,622.20 vending machine shortage at the Enon Post Office.