June 10, 2008

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                              

                                                                                                                                  

BEVERLY WILSON                                                               

10032 S. Paxton Avenue                                                                                                                                                    

Chicago, IL 60617-5203                                         

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-100

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Charles Scialla
           

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

Helen M. Lofton

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service
           

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Beverly Wilson, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Chicago District Finance Manager, dated January 16, 2008.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $2,006.66 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in a unit reserve account.

During a telephone conference with the parties on May 1, 2008, Respondent agreed that the alleged debt should be reduced to $976.66, based on the Finance Manager having given Petitioner credit for $1,230.00.  An oral hearing was scheduled but Petitioner later requested that the case be decided on written briefs, in lieu of an oral hearing.  Respondent did not oppose this, and both parties then filed written briefs.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  During the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a Customer Services Supervisor at Fort Dearborn Station in Chicago, Illinois, and was the custodian of the unit reserve stamp stock at that station.  (Petition and attached documents).

            2.  On October 26, 2007, Petitioner and another employee conducted an audit of the unit reserve account and found it to be short $2,006.00.[1]  (Answer, Exs. 3 and 5).

            3.  On November 13, 2007, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand for $2,006.00 by her supervisor.  (Answer, Ex. 1; attachment to Petition).

            4.  On November 24, 2007, Petitioner wrote to the Finance Manager, requesting reconsideration.  She argued that some errors had been made in shipping stamp stock from the unit reserve to the retail floor stock which, when corrected, more than offset the apparent shortage in the unit reserve.  (Answer, Ex. 3).

            5.  On December 12, 2007, the Finance Manager replied, stating that the errors Petitioner cited accounted for only $1,230.00, not the $2,460.00 that Petitioner claimed.  The request for reconsideration was denied.  On January 16, 2008, the Finance Manager issued Petitioner the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for $2,006.66.[2]  (Answer, Exs. 4 and 5). 

            6.  On February 8, 2008, Petitioner and another employee conducted another audit of the unit reserve account and found a $1,286.56 overage.  This overage was made up of stamp stock found in a different location, waiting to be sent for destruction.  These stamps were not counted during the October 26, 2007 audit, but they were part of the unit reserve account.  Petitioner immediately sent another memorandum to her supervisor and to the Finance Manager, asking that the Finance Manager re-evaluate this case and credit this $1,286.56, as well as the $1,230.00 previously identified, against the alleged debt.  (Attachment to Petition).    

            7.  Neither the supervisor nor the Finance Manager replied to Petitioner’s February 8 request.  The only Postal Service document in the record after that date is an invoice for $2,006.66 issued by the Accounting Service Center on February 19, 2008.  (Attachment to Petition).   

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.”  Postal Service Handbook F‑1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996, Updated With Postal Bulletin Revisions Through June 9, 2007), §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.  The only issue in this case is whether Respondent has proved a loss.

Petitioner’s position is that there was no loss.  She argues that it is an undisputed fact that $1,286.56 of redeemable stamps was found on February 8, 2008.  She contends that this amount must be credited to the unit reserve account, as was the previously credited $1,230.00, thereby more than offsetting the entire shortage.

Respondent did not address this issue at all.  The entirety of Respondent’s argument is to cite the general provision of the F-1 Handbook, holding postmasters and managers strictly liable for losses.

The only documents in the case file pertaining to the February 8, 2008 audit are Petitioner’s e-mail memoranda.  However, because Respondent presented no evidence to contradict Petitioner’s claim that she found an additional $1,286.56 of stamps that should have been counted as part of her unit reserve, and did not challenge Petitioner’s claim in any way, Petitioner’s statement is accepted as fact (see Finding #6).  Therefore, Respondent has not proved a loss.  The Petition is granted.  Respondent may not collect $976.66 from Petitioner’s salary.  If any money has been withheld from Petitioner to collect this alleged debt, that money shall be returned to her.

 

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1] In various documents in this case file, this shortage is shown as $2,006.00; $2,206.66; and $2,006.66.  It is not clear which is correct, but the conclusion reached in this decision makes it unnecessary to resolve the discrepancy.  There are no documents in the file that recorded the actual audit result.

[2] The Finance Manager apparently took the position that, because Petitioner could account for only part of the shortage she was still liable for all of it.  During the telephone conference on May 1, Respondent’s representative realized that this was not a supportable position and agreed that the alleged debt should be reduced by $1,230.00.