In the Matter of the Petition by                                 )
                                                                                )
NANCY A. ANDERTON                                           )
4502 Emerson Avenue, #C                                     )
                                                                                )
at                                                                             )
                                                                                )
Dallas, TX 75205-4603                                            )    P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-42

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                            Gerald Gale
                                                                                154 Shady Shores Drive
                                                                                Mabank, TX 75147-9133

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                         Mitch Barron
                                                                                Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                                United States Postal Service
                                                                                951 West Bethel Road
                                                                                Coppell, TX 75099-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Nancy Anderton, postmaster at the Addison Post Office, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated January 12, 1998, from Mary Cavanaugh, Manager, Post Office Operations. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,100.00 from Petitioner's salary to recover a shortage in her account disclosed by an audit on September 19, 1997.

A hearing was held in Coppell, Texas on March 12, 1998. The Postal Service presented testimony from Mr. Martin, who conducted the September 19, 1997 audit; Ms. Burton, the current officer-in-charge of the Addison Post Office; Ms. McKee, a clerk at Addison; and Ms. Cavanaugh. Petitioner did not testify, and called no witnesses, although Ms. McKee was also listed as a witness for Petitioner. Both parties presented documentary evidence, and also relied on documents previously filed with the Petition and the Answer. Each party made an oral argument at the close of the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Nancy Anderton, has been the Addison Postmaster for several years. In September 1997, because she was preparing to go on maternity leave, the post office was being turned over to Robin Burton, as Officer-in-Charge.

2. Petitioner was the custodian of the main stock at Addison. On September 19, 1997, an audit/inventory of the main stock was conducted by Mr. Martin, with both Ms. Anderton and Ms. Burton present. (Tr. 28, 38). An $1,100.00 shortage was discovered. Specifically, one-hundred $11.00 books of stamps were missing. (Tr. 6-7; Answer, Tab 1).

3. When this shortage was discovered, Mr. Martin asked Petitioner if she knew what could have caused it, and Petitioner told him she probably had given the stock to one of the clerks. (Tr. 7, 39). She named Mr. Castro and Ms. McKee as the clerks to whom she had most recently given books of 55¢ stamps. (Tr. 39).

4. The Addison window clerks, a total of five, were audited over the course of the next several weeks. These audits were not scheduled specifically to look for the $1,100.00, but were done in the normal schedule that requires all clerks to be audited every four months. (Tr. 32-33, 36, 41). Ms. McKee was audited by Ms. Burton on October 29, 1997 and was found to have an overage of $1,064.76. (Tr. 28-29, 36; Petition, Tab 5). This audit did not show what denominations of stock constituted the overage. (Tr. 40).

5. Ms. McKee does not recall Petitioner giving her a box of $11.00 books, other than one shown by a written record on September 5, 1997 (Petition, Tab 3), but neither is she sure that this did not happen. She does not know what caused her $1,064.76 overage. (Tr. 42, 46, 74-75).

6. Petitioner and her window clerks did not follow the prescribed practice (Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, Section 442) of requiring clerks to submit a handwritten PS Form 17 to requisition stamp stock. This procedure creates a written record of the type and amount of stock requested by a clerk on any particular date, and the type and amount received by the clerk from the unit reserve, or main stock, custodian. (Tr. 9-10, 21, 28). At Addison, clerks were permitted to request stock orally. Petitioner would then deliver the stock to the clerk, normally with a copy of a machine-generated Form 17, produced by the Integrated Retail Terminal (IRT). (Tr. 43-45). Such a Form shows that Ms. McKee received a box of $11.00 books ($1,100.00) on September 5, 1997. (Petition, Tab 3).

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner argues that all the facts and circumstances demonstrate a sufficient relationship between her shortage and Ms. McKee's overage that she should be credited with that overage. Although Petitioner gave no sworn testimony, it is apparent from the Petition itself, and the testimony of Ms. Cavanaugh (Tr. 63-64), that Petitioner's contention is that she gave Ms. McKee a second box of $11.00 books, but neglected to make any record of it. In essence, her position is that Respondent has not proved that there really was a loss of $1,100.00.

Respondent's position is that the evidence shows nothing more than a "possibility" that Ms. McKee's overage and Ms. Anderton's shortage represent the same stamp stock. Respondent argues that a much stronger connection must be proved in order to offset one against the other. Respondent offers other possibilities, such as money order errors or other errors in sales to customers that might have caused Ms. McKee's overage, and argues that the reason an employee's overage is placed "in trust" for one year is to protect that employee against claims arising from such errors. Finally, Respondent places strong emphasis on Petitioner's failure to follow proper procedures in accepting requisitions for stock from her clerks, and in failing to properly record distribution of stock to the clerks. It is this failure, Respondent argues, that either caused the loss, or leaves no paper trail by which to justify offsetting the overage against the shortage.

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 (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 141. Respondent's burden of proof is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. The burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established procedures. There is no dispute over the fact that Petitioner was accountable for the main stock at Addison. It is also clear that she did not always follow established procedures for issuing stock to her clerks. That fact does not become relevant, however, unless Respondent has proved that there was a loss. That is the issue in contention in this case.

Handbook F-1 states that employees should be required to replace a shortage, "[u]nless that shortage is related to an overage in another accountability of the same employee or a current overage in another employee's accountability." This provision does not define when a shortage and an overage are "related," but another section states, "[m]anagers should exercise judgment when determining the existence of a relationship that may warrant offsetting overages."

I find there is a sufficient relationship between the shortage and the overage in this case to warrant setting one off against the other. The evidence need only show a likelihood that the shortage and the overage represent the same stock. It would rarely be possible to prove this conclusively, and it is not necessary to do so. See Richard Dreher, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-233 (Sept. 2, 1997); James Loehwing, P.S. Docket No. 97-98 (May 23, 1997); Kenneth Pederson, P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-387 (Jan. 2, 1996); Donald Maus, P.S. Docket No. DCA-83 (Dec. 28, 1993). Respondent's argument that an overage can never be credited against a shortage unless there is a "paper trail" to prove the relationship cannot be correct. If there were such a paper trail, there would be no shortage. In this case, the amounts are nearly identical, and the times are relatively close. Had the clerks been counted immediately upon discovery of the shortage, and it is somewhat baffling why they were not, the times would be even closer. It is recognized that Ms. McKee cannot say with certainty that her overage was related to Ms. Anderton's shortage, but it is also significant that she has no other explanation for her overage. Respondent's suggestions that money order errors, or other errors in sales to customers, may account for the overage, are only speculation and are not persuasive, especially since six months have now passed and no evidence of such errors has surfaced.

It is also recognized that Ms. Anderton's failure to follow proper procedures in issuing stock to the clerks probably caused the dispute in this case. However, the purpose of Debt Collection Act procedures is to recover losses, not to punish employees. In this case, I find it is likely that Ms. McKee's overage was the result of her receiving the unaccounted for box of $11.00 books from Petitioner. Therefore, Respondent has not demonstrated that there was an actual loss of money to the Postal Service.

CONCLUSION

The Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $1,100.00 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge