June 21, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
YVETTE D. JOHNSON
1408 Webster Avenue, Apt. 11L
at
Bronx, NY 10456-1837
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-133
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Joel Schreck
350 W. 31st Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10001-2726
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Valerie E. Rooks
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
James A. Farley Building
421 8th Avenue, Room 3505
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Yvette D. Johnson, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor on March 15, 2002. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $704.00 from Petitioner's salary to recover a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was responsible.
A hearing was held in New York City on June 7, 2002. The Postal Service presented testimony from Daniel Martinez, Petitioner's acting supervisor at the time pertinent to this case. Petitioner testified in her own behalf and also presented testimony from Michael Poole, a co-worker. Both parties also relied on documents filed with the Petition and the Answer, and with a supplement to the Answer. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a Postal Service window clerk at Colonial Park Station in New York City since 1994. (Tr. 59).[1]
2. Window clerks enter each sales transaction into an individualized computerized system known as POS that records and categorizes by type of transaction all the daily activities of each clerk. When a sale is made by credit or debit card, the clerk must also enter the transaction into a machine known as Verifone to obtain authorization. This is done by swiping the card through the Verifone machine, which is independent of the POS, and keying in the amount of the sale. If the machine accepts the card it prints a receipt. (Tr. 11-13, 37-39, 51-54).
3. In order to close out at the end of a workday, a clerk must turn in to the person responsible for closing accounts all cash, checks, money orders, and credit and debit receipts equal to the total amounts of her sales as shown on the clerk's Form 1412. This form is printed by the clerk from the POS terminal as a recap of the day's transactions. (Tr. 8-9, 31, 35-36, 67-68; PS Exs. 7 and 7A).
4. On February 1, 2001, Mr. Martinez was responsible for doing closeouts at Colonial Park Station. When Petitioner turned in her money and documents to Mr. Martinez, her debit card receipts were $704.00 less than the amount of debit card sales shown on her Form 1412. Petitioner offered no explanation for why this was so. (Tr. 8-11, 31, 35, 80-82).
5. In order to balance Petitioner's account so her account and the overall station account could be closed, $704.00 was entered into "suspense," accounting code 761. "Suspense" is a term used to correct accounting discrepancies. When the origin of an apparent shortage cannot be immediately determined, shortages are transferred to suspense accounts so the original account can be balanced. (Tr. 9-10, 77-78; PS Exs. 7, 7A, and 9).
6. Mr. Martinez then filled out a form known as a "TASS Worksheet," listing $704.00 as a suspense entry in Petitioner's account, based on a shortage in the amount of money remitted by Petitioner at the close of the day on February 1, 2001. On February 6, 2001, Mr. Martinez issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for $704.00. (Tr. 8-9; PS Exs. 1 and 2).
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.
Respondent's contention in this case is that the alleged loss is proved by the records Petitioner turned in at the close of business on February 1, 2001. I find Respondent's evidence on this point to be persuasive. At the end of the day on February 1, 2001, Petitioner printed out her Form 1412 that showed how much money she was required to account for. The amount of cash she turned in, plus the credit and debit card receipts, was $704.00 short of the amount on the Form 1412.[2]
Petitioner claims that she thought her account balanced when she turned the money and paperwork in to Mr. Martinez on February 1, but that Mr. Martinez called her back minutes later to tell her there was a problem. I find Mr. Martinez' testimony to be clear and credible. Petitioner suggests that Mr. Martinez may have made an error, rather than Petitioner. The shortage, however, is based on the records Petitioner turned in, not on anything Mr. Martinez did.
The only other
disagreement Petitioner expressed with the testimony of Mr. Martinez was
over who made the adjustment to her account to enter the $704.00 as a suspense
item. He testified that he directed her to make the entry. She insists that
he made the entry himself because she did not know how to do it. I do not find
this to be a critical issue. Which person made the correction does not
change the fact that Petitioner was short in the amount of money and receipts
that she turned in. There is no evidence at all that Mr. Martinez
"created" a shortage that did not already exist.
On the question of whether Petitioner should be relieved of liability under the standard quoted above because she "followed the postal procedures established when performing [her] duties,” Petitioner presented insufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof. The only thing she offered was to answer "Yes," when asked by her representative, "Would you say that you have exercised reasonable care throughout that whole day?" (Tr. 61). She also conceded that it was possible that she had made a mistake in executing a debit card transaction (Tr. 65).
Respondent's evidence is sufficient to prove a loss from Petitioner's account and Petitioner has not established any basis for relieving her of liability. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $704.00 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston
[1] References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." References to documents attached to Respondent's Answer and those filed as a supplement to the Answer will be "PS Ex._."
[2] The two copies of the Form 1412 that are part of the record (PS Exs. 7 and 7A) are not the original turned in by Petitioner, but are copies of the Form 1412 after the adjustment was made by entering $704.00 as a suspense item. It would have been better, of course, if Respondent could have produced the original form that showed the discrepancy. Nevertheless, I find Exhibits 7 and 7A, with the explanation from Mr. Martinez, sufficient to prove a loss.