November 6, 2009      

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                  

                                                          

TERRIANNE STRYHAS 

                                                 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 09-385

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Terrianne Stryhas

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

James A. Davey

Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service


FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

 

            Petitioner, Terrianne Stryhas, timely filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act after having received a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from Respondent, United States Postal Service.  The Notice asserted the Postal Service’s intention to offset $113 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a unit cash reserve shortage at the Castle Rock, Colorado Post Office for which Petitioner was the accountable employee.

            At the parties’ request, this Petition is being resolved on written submissions without an oral hearing (September 30, 2009 Order).  Both parties submitted written sworn evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.         After having worked at the Castle Rock, Colorado Post Office for several years, Petitioner became the unit’s finance supervisor and custodian of its cash reserve in 2007 (Declaration of T. Stryhas, September 10, 2009; Petition and Declaration of T. Stryhas, August 6, 2009; Declaration of T. Stryhas, May 23, 2009).  As the designated custodian, Petitioner was the employee accountable for the cash reserve (Declaration of C. Wright).

2.         For several years, access to the cash reserve, which was kept in a locked drawer, was shared by a number of employees at the post office (Declaration of H. Brazell; Declaration of R. Cronin; Petition and Declaration of T. Stryhas, August 6, 2009).

3.         In 2008, a new postmaster was assigned to the Castle Rock Post Office.  The new postmaster informed Petitioner that she was financially responsible for the cash reserve and suggested ways to change how the post office handled the cash reserve.  (Declaration of C. Wright).  However, there is no evidence in the record that the postmaster imposed any such changes, and on many occasions, she told Petitioner to leave her key to the cash drawer in an unlocked desk for access by the postmaster and another employee (Declaration of T. Stryhas, September 10, 2009; Declaration of T. Stryhas, May 23, 2009; see also Declaration of R. Cronin; Declaration of C. Wright).

4.         On May 14, 2009, the cash reserve was found to be $113 short (Declaration of T. Stryhas, May 23, 2009). 

5.         On July 21, 2009, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  The Notice indicated Respondent’s intention to offset $113 from Petitioner’s salary to recover the cash shortage (Exhibit 1).

6.         On August 6, 2009, Petitioner timely transmitted a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act contesting the Notice.

DECISION

While Petitioner was custodian of the cash reserve, she was financially accountable for demonstrated shortages in that account.  See Postal Service Handbook F-1, Accounting and Reporting Policy, §§ 3-1.1.1; 3-2.3.1 (cash reserve custodian accountable for shortages); Postal Service Handbook PO-209, Retail Operations Handbook, §12-7-1 (assigned employee directly accountable for cash reserve). 

In this instance however, there is no evidence that an audit or a count was done at the time Petitioner took over responsibility as custodian.  Absent such an audit or count, or other evidence of the status of the account at that time, I cannot determine that the shortage that was discovered on May 14, 2009, occurred during the period that Petitioner was responsible for the account.  For that reason alone, Petitioner may not be held accountable for the shortage.  See Christina A. Lamb, P.S. Docket No. DCA 09-203 (October 30, 2009).  

In addition, the evidence indicates that, at the direction of and/or with the concurrence and knowledge of both the former and current postmasters, Petitioner shared access to the cash reserve with one or more employees at the post office (Findings 2-3).  Ordinarily, an accountable custodian may not avoid responsibility for a shortage by allowing others to have access to the account and then arguing that she may not be held responsible because she did not have exclusive access.  See Alexander Binetski, P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-473 (February 12, 2003).  However, where, as here, “the custodian's management directs, approves or condones a practice of shared access” the account custodian will not be liable.  Michael B. Schoenecker, P.S. Docket No. DCA 04-154 (January 21, 2005); Eric Ortiz, P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-336 (December 31, 2001).  Accordingly, for this reason as well, Appellant may not be held liable for the shortage in the cash reserve.

            The Petition is granted.  Respondent may not offset $113 from Petitioner’s salary.

 

 

 

Gary E. Shapiro

Administrative Judge