In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
DONALD LA MONTAGNE                                       )
8585 Nazareth Drive                                              )
                                                                               )
                 at                                                           )
                                                                               )
Cicero, NY 13039-8887                                         )  P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 99-283 & 350

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER                            Charles Scialla
                                                                               453 Preakness Avenue, #5
                                                                               Paterson, NJ 07502-1121

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                       Anna M. Schubert
                                                                              Acting Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                              United States Postal Service
                                                                              30 Old Karner Road
                                                                              Albany, NY 12288-9401

Petitioner, Donald LaMontagne, filed a timely Petition 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 stated Respondent's intent to withhold $1,627.32 from Petitioner's salary pursuant to a letter of demand issued on June 24, 1999. A hearing was held in Syracuse, New York.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  Petitioner was a customer services supervisor at the Syracuse, New York GMF. As such, he was the custodian of the main stock at that facility, having taken over that responsibility in July 1996. (Answer, Exhibit (Exh.) 5 (Investigative Memorandum (IM)); Respondent's Exhibit (Resp. Exh.) 1; Transcript page (Tr.) 58).

2.  At the time he took over responsibility for the main stock from the prior custodian, that custodian (who became Petitioner's immediate supervisor) also turned over to Petitioner a separate supply of stamps that was not included in the main stock and apparently was not accounted for in the records of the GMF. The origin of those stamps is not clear from the record. (Tr. 10, 52, 62).

3.  Upon assuming responsibility for the main stock, Petitioner had the combination to the safe changed. He then revealed the new combination to his immediate supervisor and to another customer services supervisor. The reason the combination was shared was so the others could issue stock to clerks and other customers who needed it in Petitioner's absence.⁽¹⁾ This informal practice was a continuation of a practice that existed before Petitioner took over as main stock custodian. In fact, Petitioner, as the custodian of a different stamp supply before taking over as main stock custodian, had been given the combination to the main stock by the previous custodian for the same reason. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was, obviously, aware that the combination had been shared, and was aware that the other customer services supervisor issued stock to the clerks in Petitioner's absence. (Tr. 38, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48, 56, 59, 64).

4.  On August 28, 1998, the main stock was audited by a postal systems coordinator. The audit revealed a shortage in the amount of $1,627.32. At that time, Petitioner revealed the existence of the separate supply of stamps to the auditor, who then included it in the count, yielding a net overage in the amount of $1,556.63. The auditor noted in his report that but for the additional supply of stamps, the main stock would have shown a shortage. (IM, Exhibit 7; Tr. 9, 10).

5.  A letter of demand was issued to Petitioner on or about June 24, 1999.⁽²⁾ Thereafter, on July 26, 1999, a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued, demanding repayment of the shortage. The Petition in this matter followed.⁽³⁾

6.  Section 421 of the F-1 Handbook (Post Office Accounting Procedures) provides that the postmaster or unit manager is to "count and verify" the main stock whenever it is transferred to or from the main stock custodian. Further, such a transfer is to be made whenever the main stock custodian is to be absent during a period in which access to the main stock may be necessary. (F-1 Handbook, November 1996).

7.  Section 141 of the F-1 Handbook provides that

"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." (Id.).

DECISION

In this case, Petitioner concedes the existence and amount of the shortage from the main stock for which he was the official custodian, but argues that he should be relieved of responsibility for the loss because of the "sloppiness" of the financial procedures "tolerated by management." Among other arguments, Petitioner contends that he should be relieved of responsibility because of the failure of management to enforce section 421 of the F-1 Handbook.

Respondent argues that Petitioner should be held strictly liable because he had the responsibility for the main stock. Respondent argues that Petitioner "gave away his protection of sole access" when he shared the combination to the safe with others and allowed them access to the main stock.

Under the F-1 Handbook, an employee such as Petitioner is held strictly liable for losses of accountable paper consigned to him, "unless evidence establishes that [he] followed the postal procedures established when performing [his] duties." In this instance, the established postal procedure then in effect at the Syracuse GMF was to have the nominal main stock custodian share access to the safe with others, including his immediate supervisor. However, because of the shared access it is not possible to attribute the shortage that occurred solely to Petitioner. Further, since Petitioner's supervisor was aware of and condoned the use of this procedure, Petitioner may not be held liable for the shortage that occurred. See Cordelia Mills, DCA 98-167 (July 13, 1998); Carolyn J. Parker, DCA 98-276 (September 11, 1998).

Accordingly, the Petition is granted. Respondent may not withhold $1,627.32 from Petitioner's salary.

David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge

¹ Formally transferring the main stock from one custodian to another (see Finding 6, below) to deal with Petitioner's absences was considered impractical, inasmuch as counting the main stock (a prerequisite to such a transfer) took two days (Tr. 48).

² That letter is not in the record.

³ A Petition was first filed on June 17, 1999, citing an "accounts receivable" allegedly established in connection with this debt. That Petition was docketed as DCA 99-283. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the first Petition, citing the absence of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. While the motion was pending, Respondent issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. A second Petition was filed on July 30, 1999, and was docketed as DCA 99-350. The two cases were consolidated for the purposes of issuing a decision.