In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
MICHAEL R. DERITA, JR.                                        )
512 Hill Street                                                         )
                                                                               )
   at                                                                         )
                                                                               )
Waterbury, CT 06704-2323                                   )      P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-180

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Michael R. Derita, Jr.
                                                                               512 Hill Street
                                                                               Waterbury, CT 06704-2323

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                        Thomas J. O'Keeffe
                                                                                Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                                United States Postal Service
                                                                                427 West Avenue Stamford, CT 06910-9411

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Michael R. Derita, Jr., filed a timely Petition for a hearing based on written submissions under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. The Notice advised Petitioner that he was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $1,135.86 resulting from a shortage in his flexible credit. Both parties have submitted evidence in support of their positions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Greenwich Avenue Station in Greenwich, Connecticut. He is assigned sole responsibility and is accountable for a credit consisting of cash, stamps and accountable paper which he uses for conducting transactions with customers. (Respondent's Exhibits ("RX") 4, 8, 9; Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996) ("F-1 Handbook"), Section 426.1).

2. On October 17, 1997, Petitioner's window credit was counted and found to be short by $1,128.45 (RX 11). At Petitioner's request, a recount was conducted on October 20, 1997, which revealed a shortage of $1,135.86 (RX 10). Petitioner signed the PS form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, for the October 20 count, signifying his agreement with the count (RX 10).

3. Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand on October 21, 1997, seeking repayment of $1,135.86 (RX 8).

4. On April 3, 1998, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets indicating its intention to collect the amount of $1,135.86 by deductions from Petitioner's salary (RX 4). Petitioner filed a timely Petition for a Debt Collection Act hearing based solely on written submissions.

5. The F-1 Handbook establishes liability for financial losses to a clerk's accountability as follows:

"141 Other Employees' Liability

The postmaster or responsible manager consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other career employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." (F-1 Handbook, Section 14).

DECISION

In this case, there is no dispute that there was a shortage in the amount of $1,135.86 in Petitioner's credit. This is a loss to Respondent, and Petitioner will be liable unless he demonstrates that he followed postal procedures when performing his duties (Finding 5).

Notwithstanding the standard set forth in the current F-1 Handbook that an employee will be liable unless it is shown that he followed established procedures (Finding 5), both parties focused on whether Petitioner exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties. The "reasonable care" standard was stated in the previous edition (1991) of the F-1 Handbook and is the standard that is still used in the National Agreement between Respondent and Petitioner's union. For purposes of this decision, I assume that the parties equated an exercise of reasonable care with following the established procedures, and therefore, even though the language of the F-1 Handbook has changed, Petitioner will not be held liable if he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties.

Respondent argues that the existence of a shortage shows that Petitioner did not exercise reasonable care in performing his duties. However, Petitioner may overcome any presumption that he failed to exercise reasonable care by presenting evidence that he did. The evidence in this case is extremely meager regarding Petitioner's performance of his duties. However, Petitioner has presented his unsworn statements made in the course of this proceeding and in support of his grievance that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties (Petitioner's May 26, 1998 Submission; RX 3(b)). Respondent offered nothing to contradict Petitioner's statements, and therefore, the only evidence in the record indicates that Petitioner exercised reasonable care in managing his credit. Accordingly, Petitioner is not liable for the shortage to his credit.

The Petition is sustained.

Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge