February 11, 2003

In the Matter of the Petition by

JAMES SANTA ANA

1094 Calle Escondida

at

Brownsville, TX 78526-4051

P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-458

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Albert E. Lum

5240 72nd Place

Maspepth, NY  11378-1516

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Mary Ann Longenecker

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

1 Post Office Drive

San Antonio, TX  78284-9401

FINAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, James Santa Ana, filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, under 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the December 18 , 2002 Decision in this case.  Respondent sought to collect $26,154.66 from Petitioner's salary to recover for shortages in two accounts for which Petitioner was responsible.  The Decision held Petitioner liable  for $10,000, the loss in one of those accounts.

            In the Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner argues that he should be relieved of the entire debt because he did not have exclusive control of the unit reserve accounts while he was the custodian.  Specifically, he points to evidence that Ms. Martinez, the postmaster, and Mr. Valdez, the “T-6” supervisory clerk, had keys to the unit reserve when Petitioner was away.

            It is true that Petitioner gave keys to the postmaster and the T-6 so that they could issue stock from the unit reserve in his absence, if necessary.  It is also true that this was done without formally transferring the account, as would have been the proper procedure.  This issue was not addressed in the Decision, however, because I found no likelihood that the security of the unit reserve was ever compromised.  

            There is conflicting evidence regarding the duration of the practice of Petitioner giving the keys to the postmaster and the T-6, and regarding who initiated the practice.  The postmaster thought Petitioner initiated the practice and that it began when he took over the unit reserve in 1993 (Tr. 28, 35).  Petitioner’s predecessor as unit reserve custodian, who trained Petitioner in managing the unit reserve, never gave access to the unit reserve to anyone else (Tr. 51), and Petitioner testified that initially he did not share access to the unit reserve but returned from leave to the post office to issue stock if necessary (Tr. 67).  Later, however, when he was required to take lengthier leaves due to his wife’s illness, the postmaster, according to Petitioner, suggested that he give keys to her and the T-6 (Tr. 68).

            While a management-inspired or management-condoned practice of allowing others access to a unit reserve may relieve the custodian from liability for shortages, (see  Eric Ortiz, P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-336 (December 31, 2001); Donald La Montagne, P.S. Docket No. 99-283 &350 (October 21, 1999), that result stems from the inability to infer that the conduct of the custodian, as opposed to the conduct of others with access, led to the shortage.  In this case, however, there is uncontradicted evidence regarding the care with which the postmaster and the T-6 accessed the unit reserve.  Petitioner gave each of them one key, but both keys were needed to access the unit reserve and neither ever entered the unit reserve without the other being present.  When issuing stock to clerks, each participated in the counting, witnessing and issuance of stock, and each transaction was recorded on a PS Form 17.  Also, the clerk receiving the stock would count and confirm the amount transferred.  (Tr. 19-20, 30-32, 57).  The PS Forms 17 were left for Petitioner, who would enter the transaction into the computer when he returned (Tr. 30, 68).  Thus, Petitioner had the means on return from any absence to insure that his unit reserve account was in balance.

            Respondent has demonstrated that the access by the postmaster and the T-6, Mr. Valdez, for the purpose of issuing stock in Petitioner’s absence likely had no effect on any shortages in the unit reserve.  Therefore, while management’s participation in the practice of shared access would prevent Respondent from pointing to this practice as evidence that Petitioner failed to follow established procedures, under the circumstances of this case management’s participation does not serve to relieve Petitioner from liability because the shared access has been reasonably eliminated as a probable cause of the shortage.

            The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge