In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
LISA JOHNSON                                                      )
95 W. 95th Street #24G                                         )
                                                                               )
at                                                                            )
                                                                               )
New York City, NY 10025-6776                            )     P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 99-66 & 67

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Pauline Jones
                                                                               Shop Steward, Planetarium St.
                                                                               127 W. 83d Street
                                                                               New York City, NY 10024

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                       James Wolahan
                                                                               Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                               United States Postal Service
                                                                               James A. Farley Bldg. Room 505
                                                                               421 8th Avenue
                                                                               New York, NY 10199-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Lisa Johnson, filed this Petition after receiving Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor in January 1999. The Notices stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold a total of $371.23 from Petitioner’s salary to recover for shortages in her account, discovered by audits on April 7, 1994, and August 21, 1996.

A hearing was held in New York City on March 23, 1999. The Postal Service presented testimony from Frances Lawyer, the supervisor who conducted the audits. Ms. Johnson testified in her own behalf, and Respondent presented some documentary evidence. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.

1. During the times pertinent to this case, Petitioner, Lisa Johnson, was a window clerk at the Planetarium Station Post Office in New York City. Her supervisor was Frances Lawyer. (Tr. 7). ⁽¹⁾

2. Ms. Lawyer conducted an audit of Ms. Johnson’s account on April 7, 1994, and found it to be short by $261.09. Ms. Johnson was present during the count and signed the PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that she agreed with the count. (Tr. 7-8, 22).

3. Ms. Lawyer also conducted an audit of Petitioner’s account on August 21, 1996, and found it to be short by $110.14. Petitioner was present during the count and signed the PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that she agreed with the count. (Tr. 7-8).

4. The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets regarding the $261.09 shortage, that apparently was issued to Petitioner sometime in early 1999, listed April 7, 1991, rather than 1994, as being the date of the audit. This is an obvious administrative error, as the Form 3294 that recorded the count was dated April 7, 1994 in three separate places. In addition, Ms. Lawyer supervised and audited Petitioner for only four years. (Tr. 21). The erroneous date caused no harm to Petitioner, and is insignificant.

5. The Form 3294 that recorded the August 1996 count contains an error in arithmetic. Had the numbers been added correctly, the shortage would only have been $40.14. This would be within the tolerance level allowed by regulation, and Petitioner would not have been charged for this shortage. (Tr. 15-16).

6. Although Ms. Lawyer has no specific recollection of the April 7, 1994 audit, it is her normal practice when conducting window clerk audits to ask the employees if they want a second count, if the first count shows a shortage. (Tr. 8). Petitioner has no recollection of the April 1994 audit at all, and specifically does not know whether she asked for a second count. (Tr. 21, 24-25).

Based on the facts discussed in Finding of Fact 5, Petitioner is not liable for the August 1996 shortage. The remainder of this decision deals with the April 1994 shortage.

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 they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (April 1991), §132.⁽²⁾ 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. In this case there is no such evidence, and a loss of $261.09 is established. The burden then shifts to Petitioner to show that she exercised reasonable care, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving her of liability.

Petitioner presented no evidence on the issue of reasonable care. The only arguments she makes as to why she should not be held liable for the $261.09 shortage are that she should have had a second count, and that she does not know whether she filed a grievance in 1994 over this debt because her unit did not have a shop steward at the time.

These arguments are not persuasive. Ms. Lawyer’s testimony that it is her normal practice to offer employees an opportunity for a second count was credible, and Petitioner offered no testimony to contradict it. There is no evidence that Petitioner asked for a second count, and no evidence that she would not have received one if she had asked. The absence of a union shop steward, and whether or not Petitioner filed a grievance, are not relevant issues in a Debt Collection Act proceeding. She was given her right to file a petition requesting a hearing under the Debt Collection Act, and she exercised that right.

The Petition in DCA 99-66 is denied. Respondent may collect $261.09 from Petitioner’s salary.

The Petition in DCA 99-67 is sustained. Respondent may not collect $110.14 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1. References are to the hearing transcript.

2. The F-1 Handbook was revised effective November 1996. However, because the events in this case arose before that date, the April 1991 version applies. It is not likely that the difference in language between the two editions would affect this case.