In the Matter of the Petition by

GARRETT L. CISZEWSKI
2605 41st Street

          at

Highland, IN 46322-2706

P. S. Docket No. DCA 00-249

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:Marie A. DeFrank
1200 Ring Road
Calumet City, IL 60409-9998

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:Brenda Y. Harris
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
6801 West 73rd Street
Bedford Park, IL 60499-9402

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Garrett Ciszewski, filed a timely Petition for hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated June 23, 2000, from his postmaster. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $656.90 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner's account.

A hearing was held in Bedford Park, Illinois on September 12, 2000.1 The Postal Service presented testimony from Pedro Garcia and Autrill Cook, accounting officials who conducted audits of Petitioner's account, and Aleta Hunter, the Dolton, Illinois Postmaster. Petitioner's representative elicited information from these witnesses, but called no additional witnesses. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner has been a supervisor at the Dolton, Illinois Post Office since 1988. From September 30, 1992 until March 29, 2000, he was the custodian of the main stock at the Dolton office. (Tr. 76, 83; Answer, p. 1).2

2. On March 10, 2000, Petitioner received a stock shipment. After he and Ms. Hunter verified the amount of the shipment and Petitioner had placed the new stock in his safe, he expressed some doubt about the accuracy of their count. Ms. Hunter "sealed" the stock to prevent any further access to it, and told Petitioner that she would do an audit in a few days when another supervisor returned from vacation. On March 16, 2000, Petitioner did not return to work after lunch, and later called Ms. Hunter to say that his doctor directed that he remain away from work indefinitely because of extreme stress. Petitioner told Ms. Hunter that he was not supposed to have any contact with work. Later that day, Ms. Hunter received a memo from a clinical psychologist, dated March 16, 2000, stating that Petitioner was "in need of extended sick leave," and that he should "be excused from his current responsibilities at his job, starting from the above noted date, and extending to a time which has not been determined." (Tr. 29-31, 52, 77; Answer, p. 6).

3. Ms. Hunter requested that an audit of Petitioner's main stock be performed by postal systems examiners. Mr. Garcia and another auditor performed an audit on March 21, 2000. Ms. Hunter did not attempt to contact Petitioner and ask if he wished to be present. Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, contains the following provision pertinent to employee audits:

426.2 Protecting Stamp Credits

3> Grant an employee the opportunity to be present whenever his or her financial accountability is inventoried or audited. If the employee is not available, a witness of the employee's choice must be present. Each employee assigned a stamp credit must furnish the installation head two names of postal employees (in order of precedence) whom the employee chooses to witness the audit or inventory when he or she is absent. Enter the names of the selected witnesses on Form 3977. (Tr. 11, 50-51; Answer, p. 43).

4. In accordance with the above rule, Petitioner had designated Ms. Hunter on his Form 3977 as his primary witness. She participated in the March 21, 2000 audit in that capacity. The procedure was that the auditors, as a team, and Ms. Hunter separately, each counted the stamp stock by comparing what was actually present against an inventory listing, and recorded their count on a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary. The auditors used one form and Ms. Hunter another. The result of their count showed a shortage of $6,877.10, in a total accountability of more than $142,000.00. (Tr. 13, 33, 42, 54-55, 75-76; Answer, pp. 7-9).

5. At the conclusion of this audit, both because of the size of the apparent shortage and because Ms. Hunter had noted some probable errors, the auditors determined that a second audit should be done. Because it was near the end of the workday, however, they were required to enter the results of their count into the computer system, using the total cash and stamp stock they had found to be present - $135,951.88. This figure would then be the opening balance when the second audit was begun. (Tr. 13-14, 40-41; Answer, pp. 10 and 15).

6. A second audit was conducted on March 29, 2000 by two different auditors, Ms. Cook and Mr. Davis. Ms. Hunter again participated as Petitioner's designated witness. The same counting procedures were followed as on March 21. As with the March 21 audit, Ms. Hunter did not attempt to contact Petitioner and ask if he wished to be present. This audit showed an overage of $6,220.20, compared to the opening balance - $135,951.88. The net difference between the two audits, i.e., the $6,877.10 "shortage" minus the $6,220.20 "overage," is the $656.90 shortage for which Petitioner is now charged. (Tr. 44, 48, 54-55, 80-81, 88).

7. The discrepancy between the two audits is based almost entirely on two errors made during the first audit. The first involved some 33¢ "City Flag" stamps. These come in books of ten stamps, value $3.30. The auditors entered these as 16 books, value $52.80. What was actually present was 16 packages of 100 books each, value $5,280.00. This error was corrected on the March 29 audit. (Tr. 18, 26, 46; PS Ex. 20, p. 11; PS Ex. 21, p. 9; PS Ex. 22, p. 7; PS Ex. 23, p. 5).3 The second error involved some 33¢ "Sonoran Desert" stamps. These also come in books of ten stamps, value $3.30. The March 21 audit did not record any of these stamps as being present, but Ms. Hunter recalled seeing some. The March 29 audit showed 300 books of "Sonoran Desert" stamps, value $990.00. (Tr. 43, 46-47, 84-85; PS Ex. 20, p. 10; PS Ex. 22, p. 5; PS Ex. 23, p. 3).

8. Ms. Hunter received a second memo from Petitioner's psychologist, dated April 11, 2000, stating that Petitioner "continues to be in need of an extended sick leave." Petitioner sent Ms. Hunter a memo, dated April 14, 2000, stating, "In keeping with my Doctors wishes I have avoided any contact with work." He also stated that he was continuing to get very little sleep, and that he found it "very difficult to concentrate or sit still for longer than five or ten minutes," but that he hoped to be able to return to work within a few weeks. (Answer, pp. 13 and 16).4

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 F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141. 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. If Respondent proves a loss, the burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established postal procedures in managing the assigned stamp stock, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

The primary issue in this case is whether there was a "properly conducted inventory, or audit." Petitioner argues that he was "available" within the meaning of §426.2, quoted above, and that he was improperly denied his right to be present at either the March 21 audit or the March 29 audit. Petitioner cites the March 16 memo from the doctor as telling Ms. Hunter only that Petitioner should "be excused from his current responsibilities at his job." Petitioner argues that this memo provides no basis for Ms. Hunter's conclusion that he could not simply come in and witness an audit. (see Finding of Fact #2). Petitioner argues that he should have been given the choice by being told the specific time and date the audits were going to be conducted.

The regulation (§426.2 quoted above) does not define the term "available," nor does it specify who is empowered to decide whether an employee is "available." Under all the circumstances of this case, management, i.e., Ms. Hunter, acted reasonably. Although the doctor's memo did not specifically say that Petitioner could not come to the office, Petitioner's April 14 memo (see Finding of Fact #8) reinforces Ms. Hunter's testimony as to what Petitioner told her on March 16, i.e., that he could have no contact with the office. In addition, Ms. Hunter was Petitioner's designated witness and there is no evidence that she did not act in Petitioner's interest in performing that function. I conclude, therefore, that the audits were conducted properly and that the March 29, 2000 audit proves a loss to the Postal Service of $656.90. I am not persuaded by Petitioner's argument that the errors made during the March 21 audit raise sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the March 29 audit.

As to the question of whether Petitioner followed established procedures, there was no specific evidence presented, other than Ms. Hunter's reference to the fact that Petitioner had difficulty entering data into the computer system and sometimes made errors. Petitioner's argument that there was no proof of negligence on his part is not sufficient to relieve him of liability under the standard quoted from the F-1 Handbook.

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $656.90 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1 The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker-telephone from Arlington, Virginia. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site. Because of illness, Mr. Ciszewski did not attend the hearing. He signed a statement waiving his right to be present and agreeing to abide by decisions made by Ms. DeFrank in his behalf.

2 References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." Documents attached to Respondent's Answer are numbered consecutively by page, and will be referred to by page number, "Answer, p._."

3 Respondent's exhibits 20-23 were submitted as a supplement to the Answer. They are referenced by exhibit number and page number, "PS Ex._, p._."

4 Petitioner's psychologist sent Ms. Hunter a similar letter on July 18, 2000, and as of the date of the hearing, Mr. Ciszewski still had not returned to work. (Answer, p. 27).