September 25, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
ANDREA J. RUSSELL-BROWN
11018 207th Street
at
Queens Village, NY 11429-1706
P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-262
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Andrea Russell-Brown
11018 207th Street
Queens Village, NY 11429-1706
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Pamela Smith-Watson
Labor Relations Manager
United States Postal Service
421 Eighth Avenue, Room 3505
New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Andrea J. Russell-Brown, filed a Petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982 after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Supervisor, Customer Services at the James A. Farley Post Office. The Notice stated Respondent’s intent to withhold $224.20 from Petitioner’s pay because of a shortage in her flexible credit. A hearing was held in New York City.[1]
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In February 2001, Petitioner was a window clerk at the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City. On February 23, 2001, two audits were conducted of her flexible credit. The first audit found a shortage of $696.40. A second audit was conducted on the same day, and the shortage was determined to be $224.20. Petitioner signed the Form 3294 reflecting the second audit, indicating that she agreed to the count. (Transcript page (Tr.) 10, 11, 14, 15; Respondent’s Exhibits (Resp. Exh.) 1, 3, 8).
2. A letter of demand, dated February 27, 2001, was issued to Petitioner by the supervisor who had conducted the second audit. The letter informed Petitioner that Respondent intended to collect the sum of $224.20 from her because of the shortage. The letter further stated,
“Collection of this debt indebtedness [sic] will be postponed until settled or adjudicated through the Grievance Arbitration Procedures if you elect to grieve this notice. If you elect not to file a grievance, A Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset Under the Debt Collection Act will be issued to you. A Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset Under the Debt Collection Act will be issued after one or more of the following:
* * *
B. Grievance not initiated or advanced to the next step of the grievance procedure within the time under Article 15.…”
The letter advised Petitioner that, under Article 15, she had 14 days from receipt of the letter in which to file a grievance. Petitioner signed the letter on March 8, 2001, acknowledging receipt. Petitioner’s union shop steward signed the letter on March 9, 2001. (Tr. 12, 18 ; Resp. Exh. 2, 7).
3. On or about March 14, 2001, the shop steward requested that he be provided specified documents “in order to properly identify whether or not a grievance does exist and, if so, [the documents’] relevancy to the grievance.” The supervisor who had conducted the audit and issued the letter of demand approved the shop steward’s request. (Resp. Exh. 7). There is no evidence that a grievance was ever filed on Petitioner’s behalf.
4. In January 2002, the equipment used by Petitioner in carrying out her duties was changed from a “MOS” to a “POS.” Prior to that transition, it had been Petitioner’s practice to save records, such as copies of Forms 1412 (annotated with her handwritten notes) and the associated backup paperwork, related to a particular time period until the audit of that period. If the audit was satisfactory, Petitioner would discard the applicable paperwork. At the time of the transition to the POS, a “final audit” was performed on Petitioner’s account. Following the transition, Petitioner was no longer accountable for stamp stock but, instead, remained accountable only for $100 in cash. At that time, Petitioner discarded all the records that she had been retaining, including those related to the period of the shortage at issue here. (Tr. 21, 22, 25-28).
5. On or about June 1, 2003, Petitioner received a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets informing her that Respondent intended to withhold $224.20 from her pay because of the shortage reflected in the February 27, 2001 letter of demand. (Notice attached to Petition).
6. Under §141 of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, Petitioner is “held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that [she] followed the postal procedures established when performing [her] duties.”
DECISION
Respondent contends that the record demonstrates that there was a shortage from an account for which Petitioner was responsible. Respondent also contends that the record shows no basis for relieving Petitioner from liability for the shortage.
Petitioner does not deny that an audit showed an apparent shortage in her flexible credit account. The primary basis for her argument that she should be relieved from liability is based on the amount of time that passed from the issuance of the letter of demand in March 2001, to the issuance of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in May 2003. In her Petition, Petitioner states that she cannot now recall the specifics of the shortage. Petitioner’s position is that had Respondent been more timely in issuing the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, she would not have discarded the records related to the period in question, and would have been in a better position to defend against the collection effort.
Although Petitioner does not deny that the audit of her account showed a shortage, under the circumstances of this case Petitioner may not be held accountable. The letter of demand issued to Petitioner on March 8, 2001, advised her that Respondent intended to collect $224.20 from her, but that she had 14 days in which to file a grievance or a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets would be issued to her. Nevertheless, Respondent did not issue the Notice until more than two years after the expiration of that 14-day period.
In the interim, nearly a year after these events, as part of the transition to the POS system, a “final audit” was conducted of Petitioner’s account and she was relieved of further accountability for stamp stock. At that time, Petitioner discarded the records she had been keeping, including those related to the period of the apparent shortage, which included her handwritten notes. In view of the “final audit,” the change in the nature of Petitioner’s accountability, the relatively small size of the apparent shortage, and Respondent’s failure to follow up on the letter of demand for nearly a year, it is not unreasonable that Petitioner discarded the records she had retained. While Petitioner does not allege that the records would have shown a problem that would have relieved her from liability, under these circumstances she has been prejudiced in her ability to defend against Respondent’s claim.
Accordingly, the Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $224.20 from Petitioner’s salary.
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
[1] The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Judge via speakerphone from Arlington, Virginia. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in the hearing room in New York City.