In the Matter of the Petition by

ED CLARK
20 Crews Street

at

Totowa, NJ 07512-9998

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-196

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Gloria Gilchrist
194 Ward Street
Paterson, NJ  07510-9998

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Kathy M. Thomas
Paralegal Specialist
United States Postal Service
380 W. 33rd Street, Room 4516
New York, NY  10199-9003

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Ed Clark, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his supervisor on April 24, 2003.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $157 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was accountable.

            Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions.  The only issue raised by Petitioner in this case is a contention that management did not follow prescribed rules in processing a grievance and that this matter is still alive in the grievance process.  In the Answer, Respondent stated that Petitioner’s union did not carry the grievance to the next step and that there is no pending grievance.  Following a telephone conference on May 29, 2003, the parties were given time to research the status of the grievance and to submit supporting documents if they could not agree on whether action on the grievance is still pending.

            By Order dated June 20, 2003, it was determined, based on the documents filed by Respondent, that there is no grievance action still pending.  The parties were then given time to submit additional evidence and argument addressing the merits of the alleged debt.  Respondent did so, including sworn declarations from Michael Savage and Jane Castellamare.  Petitioner submitted other material pertaining to the grievance, but nothing about the merits of the alleged debt.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was the custodian of the main stock at Hillcrest Station in Totowa, New Jersey.  Hillcrest is a very small station, often operated by one person.  (Savage Declaration; Castellamare Declaration).

            2.  Mr. Savage is the Branch Manager at the Totowa, New Jersey Post Office.  Ms. Castellamare is the Supervisor of Customer Service at Totowa and is Petitioner’s immediate supervisor.  On December 31, 2002, Mr. Savage audited the main stock at Hillcrest and found it to be $157 short.  Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the count.  (Savage Declaration; Castellamare Declaration; PS Ex. 5).

            3.  Also on December 31, 2002, Ms. Castellamare audited the retail floor stock at Hillcrest and found it to be $68 over.  All sales to customers are made from the retail stock, never from the main stock.  Stock needed for sales is “shipped” by the main stock custodian from the main stock to the retail floor stock.  This is done by making required record entries that reduce the main stock and increase the retail stock by equal amounts.  At the time of the audits, Petitioner presented nothing to Mr. Savage or Ms. Castellamare to show a correlation between the shortage and the overage, or to show any reason for the shortage.  (Savage Declaration; Castellamare Declaration).

            4.  On January 9, 2003, Ms. Castellamare issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for $157 (PS Ex. 2).

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 from liability.

            In this case, the December 31, 2002 audit, unchallenged by Petitioner, is sufficient to establish a loss of $157.  Petitioner has not argued that the $68 overage in the retail floor stock should be offset to reduce the amount of the loss.  If he had, it is his burden to establish a relationship between the two, and he has not done so.

            Likewise, Petitioner has presented no evidence to show that he followed established procedures in performing his duties relative to the main stock.  Therefore, there is no basis under the standard of liability quoted above for relieving Petitioner from liability on that ground.  There is no jurisdiction in this forum to address Petitioner’s arguments regarding how this matter was handled in the grievance process. 

            Respondent has carried its burden of proof, and Petitioner has presented no basis for relief from liability.  The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $157 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge