In the Matter of the Petition
by
BARRY A. WILL
3 Wedgewood Drive
at
P.S. Docket No. DCA 05-83
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Barry A. Will
3 Wedgewood Drive
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Christine Ralph
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
955 Goffs Falls Road
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION
ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Barry A. Will, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his postmaster on May 3, 2005. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $679.15 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in Petitioner’s flexible credit, discovered on July 20, 2004.
Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions. The parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Petitioner filed an unsworn statement from a co-worker. Respondent filed no additional evidence.[1] The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was assigned a window clerk account at the Winchester, New Hampshire Post Office. He had the account since August 14, 2002. (Petition; Answer, Ex. 4).
2. On July 20, 2004, the postmaster audited Petitioner’s account and found it to be short $683.11. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that he agreed with the accuracy of the count. (Answer, Ex. 6).
3. On July 22, 2004, the postmaster issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for $679.15. On May 2, 2005, the current postmaster issued Petitioner the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for the same amount. (Answer, Exs. 1
and 2).[2]
4. Between August 14, 2002, and the count on July 20, 2004, Petitioner’s account was audited five times, four times showing a small shortage and one time showing a small overage, all within the accepted tolerance. The audit immediately previous to the July 20, 2004 audit was on March 15, 2004, and showed an 82¢ overage. (Answer, Exs. 5 and 13).
5. On occasion during the time Petitioner was a window clerk, the former postmaster worked out of Petitioner’s stamp drawer. (Petition; Mattson statement).
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 the employee. 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.
In the Petition, Petitioner stated that he did not believe he should have to pay the alleged debt because the postmaster worked out of his drawer and also because he and another clerk often traded stamp stock.
Respondent argues that Petitioner is strictly accountable under the standard quoted above and that Petitioner has presented no evidence to support his claims. Respondent also argues that Petitioner’s acceptable audit history prior to the July 2004 shortage demonstrates that he knew how to manage his account and that office procedures were apparently working properly. Further, Respondent notes that there is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained about the matters he now asserts as a defense.
Petitioner’s first argument fails because it is too vague. His statement does not name the other clerk, and offers no details as to the time frame, the amounts, or the frequency of their stamp trading. Nor is there a statement from the other clerk to support Petitioner’s assertion. However, with regard to the postmaster having access to Petitioner’s stamp drawer, Petitioner has raised a significant issue that Respondent has failed to address. When there is shared access to an account, it is difficult to attribute a shortage to the assigned individual. Normally it is the responsibility of the assigned individual to insure that no one else has access to his account. It is a different situation, however, when the individual’s supervisor initiates or condones the practice of shared access. (Eric Ortiz, P. S. Docket No. DCA 01-336 (December 31, 2001); Donald La Montagne, P. S. Docket No. DCA 99-283 & 350 (October 21, 1999)). In this case, Petitioner’s evidence is very thin and somewhat unspecific, but both Petitioner and Mr. Mattson state that the former postmaster had access to Petitioner’s account. Respondent presented no statement from the former postmaster, or any other evidence to contradict Petitioner’s evidence.
The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $679.15 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce
R.
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] In a telephone conference on June 24, 2005, and in an
Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference, dated June 24, 2005, the parties
were told that they should present the same evidence they would present at an
oral hearing, i.e., any relevant documents, and sworn statements from witnesses
who can explain the documents and who have knowledge of pertinent facts.
[2] The record does not make clear why $683.11 became
$679.15, but as that worked in Petitioner’s favor there is no need to resolve
this difference.