August 14, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
SONDRA COFIELD
2070 1st Avenue, Apt. 1055
at
New York, NY 10029-4325
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-308
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
William Brown
12 Mount Run
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753-7674
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Christine Patterson
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
James A. Farley Building
421 Eighth Avenue, Room 3505
New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Sondra Cofield, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated June 4, 2002. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $3,994.04 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 August 2, 2002.[1] The Postal Service presented testimony from Ivan Lopez, Petitioner's station manager, Alan McLaughlin, Bruce David, and Jeannine Jackson, who conducted an audit of Petitioner's account, and Mildred Wright, a finance manager. Petitioner testified in her own behalf and both parties relied on documents filed with the Postal Service Answer. Petitioner submitted one additional document during the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. During the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a supervisor at the College Station Post Office in New York City and she had been the custodian of the unit reserve stock at College Station since September 1999. (Tr. 10, 44).[2]
2. In October 2000, Petitioner was scheduled for maternity leave. On approximately October 28, 2000, she and Mr. David began a count of the unit reserve in preparation for turning the account over to Mr. David. Petitioner began having labor pains, however, and went to the hospital. She and Mr. David locked the vault where the unit reserve was kept. (Tr. 8, 21-22, 51-52, 56).
3. Because it was necessary to turn over the account during Petitioner's absence, Mr. McLaughlin, Ms. Jackson and Mr. David conducted a full audit of the unit reserve on November 1, 2000. Prior to the count, Mr. David called Petitioner to get the combination to the vault. No one other than Petitioner had access to the vault during this interim time. The count conducted by Mr. McLaughlin, Ms. Jackson and Mr. David showed a $3,394.04 shortage from a total accountability of $37,513.71. They counted the stock twice and got the same result each time. (Tr. 9, 23-24, 35-36, 38-39; Answer, Ex. 1, pp. 1-8).
4. In August of 2000, College Station converted to a stamp stock accounting system known as Segmented Inventory Accountability (SIA). This means that individual window clerks are no longer assigned personal accountability for stamp stock. They work from what is called "floor stock," which is dispersed to the "floor" from the unit reserve by the unit reserve custodian. The unit reserve custodian remains personally accountable for the unit reserve. (Tr. 44-45, 68-70).
5. Upon conversion to the SIA system, the unit reserve custodian was required to do an audit of the floor stock every 30 days for at least three months. This, along with the amount of retail sales for each 30-day period, is used to determine a tolerance level for shortages or overages in the retail floor stock. Proper procedure for doing these audits is to use a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, to record the count, and to enter the result into the computerized stock management system known as POS One. (Tr. 44-45, 57-59, 69).
6. Petitioner performed the required floor audits in September 2000 and on October 27, 2000, the day before she left for maternity leave. Mr. Lopez recalls Petitioner mentioning to him that there were overages on these audits. Petitioner is not sure whether she made the correct entries into the POS system. The District Finance Office has no record of overages reported in September or October 2000. In preparation for the hearing in this case, Petitioner made two written requests to Mr. Lopez for copies of paper records pertaining to the September/October 2000 audits. He had a clerk look for records but none were found. (Tr. 14-15, 18, 45, 58-60, 81-82, 88; Pet. Ex. 1).
7. On November 20, 2000, Mr. Lopez issued Petitioner a Letter of Debt Determination for $3,994.04. Because of an error in the letter, the letter was rescinded on December 20, 2000, and a new letter alleging the same debt was issued on January 28, 2001. A Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued on June 4, 2002. (Answer, Exs. 2, 5, 9 and 10).
DECISION
There is no dispute over the shortage found on the audit of November 1, 2000. Petitioner testified that she was aware, based on the count that she and Mr. David began before her maternity leave, that a shortage was likely. The only issue in this case is whether there was any overage in the floor stock that should be offset against the unit reserve shortage.
Petitioner testified that she performed two audits of the floor stock in September and October 2000, as required under the new SIA system, and that she used PS Forms 3294 to record the results. She also testified that an overage of approximately $1,000.00 existed on each of these audits. She contends that she has been hindered in the presentation of her case because the Postal Service did not produce the records of those audits. Therefore, she argues, the shortage found on November 1, 2000 should be reduced by $2,000.00.
Respondent's position is that it was Petitioner's responsibility to make the correct entries into the POS system if she conducted audits that showed an overage in the floor stock. This is correct, but if there was an overage Respondent's loss is less than alleged, even if Petitioner failed to make the correct computer entries. Based on Ms. Wright's testimony that finance office records show no such overages, Respondent contends that there can be no offset.
I find Petitioner's testimony that she audited the floor stock in September and October 2000 and found an overage to be credible. Her testimony is corroborated to some extent by Mr. Lopez' testimony that he remembers her telling him about an overage. Further, the new SIA system, just implemented in August 2000, required that she do floor audits each month. Had she not done so, it is likely that someone would have noted that. Assuming an overage in the floor stock contemporaneous with a shortage in the unit reserve, it is appropriate to offset the overage against the shortage because the unit reserve is the source of all the floor stock. This demonstrates a sufficient relationship between the shortage and the overage.
The amount of any overage Petitioner found in the floor stock is very uncertain, of course. Petitioner is entitled to some benefit of the doubt, however, because of Respondent's failure to produce the written records she requested. Even if she failed to make the correct entries into the POS system, the paper records should have been retained by Mr. Lopez' office. Petitioner claims credit for $2,000.00 in overages, but the evidence does not support finding that there were separate $1,000.00 overages found on the two audits. The fact that finance records do not show that Petitioner took the proper corrective action makes it likely that any overage found on the October audit was the same that existed on the September audit. I find it appropriate, therefore, to give Petitioner credit for one $1,000.00 overage by offsetting that amount against the $3,994.04 shortage.
The Petition is granted in part and denied in part. Respondent may collect $2,994.04 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker telephone from Arlington, Virginia. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.
[2] References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." References to documents attached to the Postal Service Answer will be "Answer, Ex._."