May 23, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
OLIVER HSIUNG
542 Atlantic Avenue
at
Brooklyn, NY 11217-9997
P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-152
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Oliver Hsiung
542 Atlantic Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217-9997
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
James Wolahan
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
421 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Oliver Hsiung, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated March 7, 2003, from his supervisor. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $6,034.44 from his salary to recover a loss from a stamp stock account for which Petitioner was responsible.
A hearing was held in New York City on May 2, 2003. The Postal Service presented testimony from Margarita Canales, Petitioner’s supervisor, and Valerie Donald, who conducted an audit of Petitioner’s unit reserve account. Petitioner testified on his own behalf and both parties relied on documents filed with the Petition and 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 completed an Associate Supervisor Program in May 2001, and since that time has been a supervisor at the Murray Hill Station in New York City. In June 2002, he became custodian of the unit reserve stock at that station. (Petition; Tr. 9, 14, 28, 48).[1]
2. On September 10, 2002, Valerie Donald, another supervisor, conducted an audit of the unit reserve account. The reason for the audit was to determine whether there was excess stock in the unit reserve that might account for a shortage in the retail floor stock at Murray Hill found during an audit on September 7, 2002. The September 10 audit showed a shortage of $6,034.44 in the unit reserve. Petitioner was present during the audit and responded to questions from Ms. Donald about some discrepancies, but his participation in the actual counting of stamp stock was minimal. He signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 25-27, 43-44; PS Ex. 2).
3. Prior to taking on the duties of unit reserve custodian, Petitioner attended a four-day training class on how to work with the POS-ONE system, the computerized stamp stock management system, and also had two weeks of training in financial matters by working with other supervisors at Murray Hill. (Petition; Tr. 11-12, 30; PS Ex. 5).
4. On some occasions, in order to satisfy a customer’s immediate need, and when the retail clerk who normally verified such transactions was absent, Petitioner released stamp stock from his unit reserve for retail sale as part of the floor stock without making a contemporaneous entry into the POS system to transfer the stock from the unit reserve to the floor. Proper procedure is to make the POS entries to reduce the accountability of the unit reserve and increase the accountability of the retail floor stock at the time the stock is physically moved. (Tr. 22-23, 25, 32-33).
5. On December 20, 2002, Ms. Canales issued Petitioner a Letter of Debt Determination for $6,034.44. (PS Ex. 1).
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 any specific dereliction, or act of negligence, by Petitioner. 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. If Respondent proves a loss, the burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.
Respondent’s position is simply that the September 10, 2002 audit proves a loss of $6,034.44 from the unit reserve at Murray Hill Station, that there is no question that Petitioner was the assigned custodian at that time, and that Petitioner has presented no basis for relieving him from liability for the loss.
The audit conducted by Ms. Donald on September 10, 2002, is sufficient to carry Respondent’s burden of proving a loss of $6,034.44. Petitioner was present during the audit and he signed the PS Form 3294 indicating agreement with the accuracy of the count. Therefore, even though Petitioner claims that he did not actually participate in the count because he was busy with other things and because he was unfamiliar with how to do an audit, he presented no evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of the audit. If he chose not to participate in the count, and to sign the Form 3294 without assuring himself that the audit was accurate and done properly, he did so at his own risk.
Petitioner’s principal defense is that he was not adequately trained to perform the duties of a unit reserve custodian. He contends that the training he had was only on how to work with the POS computer and on how to balance clerk accounts at the end of each workday. He says he had no training on how to manage a unit reserve account, and that the account was turned over to him on short notice when the previous custodian left for another job.
While it may be true that Petitioner received no specific training on how to be a stamp stock custodian, he has not persuasively demonstrated what particular training he lacked that prevented him from carrying out his duties. He knew that he became accountable for the unit reserve when he took over the account in June 2002. At no time did he tell his supervisor that he did not believe he was capable of performing the duties. The issue here is not whether Petitioner is an honest, hard-working employee. There is no evidence that he is not. The issue is over how to apply the standard of liability quoted above for Postal Service employees who manage large sums of cash and stamp stock. Despite Petitioner’s apparent motivation to learn and do a good job, the record discloses no reason he should not be held to the standard of liability quoted above.
Petitioner presented no evidence that he should be relieved of liability on the grounds that he followed established postal procedures, as is provided in §141 of the F-1 Handbook. To the contrary, he acknowledged that he sometimes did not follow prescribed procedures (see Finding #4).
Finally, Petitioner contends that the proposed rate at which Respondent intends to collect the debt, $185 per pay period, would constitute a serious financial hardship. The only evidence he presented is that he has four dependents and that his net pay per pay period is $1,273. Nevertheless, I find it appropriate to stretch out the repayment over a slightly longer period.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $6,034.44 from Petitioner’s salary at the rate of $150 per pay period.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] References to the hearing transcript are “Tr._.” References to documents attached to Respondent’s Answer and to one additional document submitted by Respondent at the hearing will be “PS Ex._.”