September 23, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
LAWRENCE A. TETTEH
2200 East Tremont Avenue, 7F
at
Bronx, NY 10462-6310
P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-289
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Lawrence A. Tetteh
2200 East Tremont Avenue, 7F
Bronx, NY 10462-6310
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Christine Patterson
Labor Relations Representative
United States Postal Service
421 Eighth Avenue, Room 3506
New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Lawrence Tetteh, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his supervisor on June 27, 2003. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $3,765.56 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 27, 2003.[1] The Postal Service presented testimony from Petitioner’s supervisor, Jeannine Lewis-Jackson. Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and submitted two additional documents at the hearing. Both parties also relied on documents that had previously been filed. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a Supervisor of Customer Service at the Bronx General Post Office, and from September 5, 2002 to March 25, 2003, he was the custodian of the unit reserve stock at the Bronx GPO. He had been a supervisor for approximately four years. (Tr. 10, 20, 27, 31; PS Ex. 1).[2]
2. Part of Petitioner’s duties as unit reserve custodian was to supply stamp stock to technicians who were responsible for stocking and maintaining vending machines. The procedure for issuing stock to vending technicians is the same as for issuing stock to window clerks, or to the retail floor stock. PS Form 17s are used to record the amount of stock being issued, and both the issuer and the receiver should verify that the amount being issued is accurate. (Tr. 11-12).
3. On March 25, 2003, Petitioner’s unit reserve stock was audited, as part of the process of the unit reserve being turned over from Petitioner to Ms. Jackson. The audit revealed a shortage of $3,765.56. The total accountability was $391,238.61, but only $387,473.05 was present. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the audit. (Tr. 10, 26, 34; PS Ex. 2).
4. On October 2, 2002, Petitioner had audited the stock of vending technician, Michael Fishman, and found the account to be over by $2,207.75. Mr. Fishman had $127,572.23 in cash and stamp stock, versus an accountability of $125,364.48. (Tr. 27, 38; PS Ex. 6).
5. On April 23, 2003, Ms. Jackson audited the stock of vending technician, Steve Kerzner, and found the account to be over by $533.25. Mr. Kerzner had $124,727.91 in cash and stamp stock, versus an accountability of $124,194.66. Mr. Kerzner’s audit record also shows that he had a $28,886.06 shortage when he was audited in December 2002. (Tr. 27; PS Ex. 7).
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.
In this case, there is no dispute over the accuracy of the March 25, 2003 audit, but Petitioner contends that the actual loss to the Postal Service is only $1,024.56, because the shortage should be reduced by the two overages in the vending accounts.
The general rule on offsetting overages against shortages is that an offset is not appropriate unless the evidence establishes a probable relationship between the two, i.e., that the overage and the shortage represent the same stamp stock.[3] Petitioner argues that the only source of stamp stock for vending accounts is the unit reserve and that this is a sufficient relationship. There is no way for a vending account to be over by $2,000 or $500, Petitioner contends, unless he erroneously gave those accounts more stamps than he recorded. In support of this argument, Petitioner testified that the way stamp stock is packaged is sometimes confusing, and he showed an example of an error made in issuing stamps to a third vending technician (Pet. Exs. 1 and 2).[4]
Petitioner’s theory is too speculative to support crediting him with the vending overages. The vending overages are not in the same amount as Petitioner’s shortage and, because the audits of the accounts are separated by several months, we do not know when the overages and the shortage occurred, or whether they occurred close in time to each other. The size of the vending accounts - approximately $125,000 each - makes it probable that a discrepancy of $2,000 or $500 could occur without a relationship to the unit reserve account. Petitioner did not present testimony or statements from either vending technician. Petitioner did not show a relationship between the overages and his shortage.
Petitioner also argued that he was not adequately trained in how to be a unit reserve custodian, but his testimony demonstrated that he knew the requirements of his job, and he presented no evidence as to what specific training he lacked. The evidence does not demonstrate that management failed to provide Petitioner with the means to maintain the security of his unit reserve.
Although Petitioner testified that he followed established procedures in issuing stamp stock from his unit reserve, and was careful to verify amounts issued, he presented no independent evidence to support this. Further, his assertion that the vending overages must have been the result of errors he made in issuing stock weighs against finding that he should be relieved under this provision of the standard of liability quoted above.
Respondent’s evidence proves a loss of $3,765.56, and the evidence does not provide a basis for relieving Petitioner of liability. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $3,765.56 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 Respondent’s Answer are “PS Ex._.” References to documents submitted by Petitioner will be “Pet. Ex._.”
[3] Handbook F-1, §429.16.