P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-370
January 29, 1998
In the Matter of the Petition by )
)
CELESTE A. ROBIN )
16119 McConnell Drive )
)
at )
)
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3280 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-370
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Douglas E. Sapp
P. O. Box 2670
Merrifield, VA 22116-2670
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Alfred A. Pope
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
8409 Lee Highway
Merrifield, VA 22081-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Celeste A. Robin, filed a timely Petition requesting an oral hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on September 8, 1997. The Notice advised Petitioner that she was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $1,730.24 resulting from a shortage in her flexible credit at the Alexandria, Virginia Post Office.
A hearing was held on November 20, 1997, in Washington, D.C. The Postal Service presented the testimony of three witnesses and Petitioner testified on her own behalf. In addition to the transcript of the hearing, the record consists of the Declaration of C. Michael Harlow, the Alexandria, Virginia Postmaster, as well as Respondent's Exhibits RX-1 through RX-8, Petitioner's Exhibits PX-1 through PX-4 and Joint Exhibit JX-1. The parties were given the opportunity to submit written arguments in lieu of making closing statements. However, only Respondent submitted a written argument.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. From 1991 to 1994, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Alexandria, Virginia Post Office. On February 1, 1994, Petitioner's stamp stock credit was audited and found to be short $1,730.24. Petitioner was present and participated in the audit. She agreed with the count, as evidenced by her signature on the audit form. (Transcript pages (Tr.) 19, 20, 97; Respondent's Exhibit (RX) 1).
2. On February 5, 1994, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand for the $1,730.24 shortage in her stamp stock. Petitioner and her supervisor reviewed Petitioner's records at this time to see whether they could identify the cause of the shortage, but found nothing. (Tr. 17, 35, 36; RX-2).
3. Petitioner had been previously audited in October 1993. This audit disclosed a shortage of $3,874.80. This shortage was placed in a suspense account, thereby rebalancing Petitioner's flexible credit prior to the audit involved in this Petition. (Tr. 26, 27, 37, 99; RX-3).
4. During the time period covered by the prior audit, in September of 1993, Petitioner's T-6(1) was transferred from the Alexandria, Virginia Post Office. This individual was subsequently convicted of theft of Postal Service funds. Petitioner testified at his trial. (Tr. 29, 35,104).
5. It was not until September 8, 1997, that the Postal Service issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. Postal Service officials had not issued a Notice earlier because they believed Petitioner had filed a grievance with her union. However, a check of grievance filings disclosed that Petitioner had no active grievance regarding this shortage(2). (Tr. 53).
6. Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, (April 1991), at Section 473.1, provides:
"473 Collection Procedures for Monies Demanded
473.1 Bargaining Unit Employees
When, in accordance with the conditions and standards set forth in Article 28 of the employee's respective collective bargaining agreement and Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) 460, it is determined that a bargaining unit employee is financially liable to the Postal Service, any demand for payment must be in writing and signed by the Postmaster or his or her designee. . . ." (Petitioner's Exhibit (PX) 3).
7. The Alexandria Postmaster delegated the authority to issue Letters of Demand to his managers and supervisors who had direct administrative authority over individuals with stamp credits. However, he has never made a written delegation. (Declaration of C. Michael Harlow; Stipulation of the Parties).Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner's primary argument in this Petition is that she has been prejudiced from defending herself against this alleged debt because of the passage of time between the audit in February 1994, and the issuance of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in September 1997. Petitioner argues that because the Postal Service delayed over three and a half years before beginning collection efforts, she is unable to properly investigate whether there are any correlations between her shortage and other possible overages in her post office.
Secondly, Petitioner argues that she filed a grievance under the union agreement and that collection of this debt should not be allowed until her grievance is decided.
Petitioner next argues that her shortage may be related to the actions of one of the other employees at her post office who was subsequently convicted of theft. Petitioner also alleges in this regard that she was promised by the Postal Inspection Service that her Postal Service debts would be waived if she testified against this individual.
Finally, Petitioner argues that the Letter of Demand issued to her on February 5, 1994, is invalid because the issuing official never received a written delegation of authority from the Postmaster to issue letters of demand.
Respondent argues that Petitioner received a Letter of Demand within five days of the audit which disclosed the shortage giving rise to this Debt Collection Act Petition. Respondent argues, therefore, that Petitioner had timely and ample opportunity to determine whether there existed a correlation between her shortage and any possible concurrent overages in other accounts at the post office. Respondent next argues that Petitioner failed to provide any evidence of a connection between her debt and the actions of the employee convicted of embezzlement. Respondent further argues that there is no basis for relieving Petitioner of this debt simply because there was no written delegation of authority from the Postmaster provided to the individual who issued the Letter of Demand.
Finally, Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she followed Postal Service procedures or exercised reasonable care in protecting and accounting for Postal Service funds.
The standard for determining liability in cases such as this is found in Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, subsection 132(3):
132 Other Employees
The postmaster consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties.
Respondent's burden of proof, in cases of unexplained shortages such as this, is to establish a loss and to show that Petitioner was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that she was accountable for the stock in question. When a properly conducted 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 audit or previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. Richard G. Dreher, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-223 (Sept. 2, 1997). In this case Petitioner participated in and signed the audit documents (See Finding 1), and does not dispute the accuracy of the findings of the audit.
Accordingly, Respondent has demonstrated that a loss to the Postal Service of $1,730.24 occurred and that Petitioner was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred(4). To avoid liability for this loss Petitioner must prove she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties. However, Petitioner offered no evidence to support a finding that she exercised reasonable care.
None of Petitioner's arguments against liability have merit in this proceeding.
Although the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was not issued to Petitioner until September 1997, nothing in the Debt Collection Act of 1982 specifies a time period by which debt collection must be initiated. Petitioner has not alleged that there is any Postal Service policy or regulation that prevents the Postal Service from initiating collection of a debt some three and a half years after the debt arose. Petitioner does not dispute that she received a Letter of Demand for $1,730.24 four days after her audit. Petitioner was, therefore, adequately apprised of the fact that the Postal Service believed her to be responsible for the debt and she did contemporaneously investigate what may have caused her shortage. (Finding No. 2).
Although Petitioner testified that she filed a grievance under her union agreement concerning this debt collection action, Postal Service personnel were unable to find any record of such a grievance (Finding No. 5). In the absence of an on-going grievance, it was permissible for the Postal Service to issue Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to begin collection of this debt.
Petitioner has not established that there is any Postal Service requirement for a written delegation of authority from the Alexandria, Virginia Postmaster to the supervisor who issued the Letter of Demand to Petitioner. The F-1 Handbook requires only that the Letter of Demand be issued by the Postmaster or ". . . his or her designee. . . ." (Finding No. 6). This section does not require the designation to be in writing.
Finally, Petitioner's argument that the Postal Inspection Service promised to waive this debt in return for her testimony cannot be addressed in this forum. See Raymond J. Voisine, P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-22, March 21, 1995.(5)
Accordingly, this Petition is denied. Petitioner is responsible to repay to the Postal Service $1,730.24.
William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
1. A "T-6" is a senior window clerk who, on occasion, performs some of the functions of a supervisor (Tr. 28, 110).
2. Petitioner testified that she had filed a grievance regarding this shortage, but offered no other evidence of having done so, nor could she state what was the status of the grievance or whether it had been resolved (Tr. 99-102).
3. The F-1 Handbook was revised effective November 1996. However, because the events relevant to this case arose before then, the April 1991 edition applies. References in this decision to the F-1 Handbook are to the 1991 edition.
4. Although Petitioner alleges that her loss may be related to the thefts of Postal funds carried out by her T-6, this individual no longer worked at the Alexandria Post Office during the period covered by the audit in this case (Finding Nos. 3, 4).
5. It was not clear from Petitioner's testimony on this issue that the shortage in question was included in the promise of the Postal Inspection Service to waive her debts in return for her testimony against her T-6. However, if it is true that an individual from the Postal Inspection Service promised to waive this loss, then Petitioner should further pursue a waiver of this debt through Postal Inspection Service officials.