In the Matter of the Petition by

ALVIN K. GAY
24 Cogswell Street

          at

Bridgeport, CT 06610-1914

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 99-540-542

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:     Nolan Cox
                                                         P.O. Box 195
                                                         Stamford, CT 06904-0195

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

Mr. Cox filed three Petitions on behalf of Petitioner, Alvin Gay, after Mr. Gay received three Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated November 19, 1999, from Carrie Damon, Manager of Accounting Operations for the Connecticut District. Each Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold a sum of money from Petitioner's salary to recover for shortages in his account discovered on three different audits. The total amount of the alleged debts is $2,284.56.

Petitioner elected to present his case on written submissions, and the parties were given an opportunity to file additional evidence and arguments, beyond that submitted with the Petition and the Answer. Respondent filed some additional documents, including sworn statements from the people who performed the audits. Petitioner filed nothing. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. During the time relevant to this case, Petitioner was a window clerk at the New Canaan, Connecticut Post Office, and was assigned a flexible credit account.

2. On September 15, 1992, Petitioner's account was audited by the postmaster, William Austin, and found to be $1,205.37 short. Petitioner requested a recount and one was conducted the next day by Wayne Amente. This count found the shortage to be $1,205.45. Petitioner participated in the count and agreed with the result. (Amente Declaration).

3. The postmaster issued a letter of demand for $1,205.45 to Petitioner on September 18, 1992.

4. On April 27, 1993, Petitioner's account was audited by the postmaster, William Austin, and found to be $399.03 short. The account was recounted that same day by Rose Howell and Petitioner, and found to be $400.70 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Form 3294, attached to Answer in DCA 99-542; Howell Declaration).

5. On January 19, 1994, Petitioner's account was audited by Michael Buzzeo and found to be $678.10 short. The account was recounted that same day by the postmaster, Michael Kaylor, and Petitioner. This count found the shortage to be $678.41. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Form 3294, attached to Answer in DCA 99-541; Kaylor Declaration).

6. Window clerk accounts are required to be audited every four months. (Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, §429.1). Petitioner's audit history from April 1989 to May 1994, when his account was closed, is recorded on a PS Form 3368, Stamp Credit Examination Record. This record shows numerous instances, in addition to the three that are the subject of this case, when Petitioner's account was either short or over beyond the normal $50.00 tolerance limit.

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 exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (April 1991), §132.⁽¹⁾ 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 exercised reasonable care in managing the assigned stamp stock, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

Respondent has carried its burden of proof by submitting sworn declarations from the persons who conducted the audits, along with copies of pertinent records. Other than the "bare-bones" Petitions, which identified no specific issues, Petitioner has submitted nothing in this case. He has offered nothing to challenge the evidence presented by Respondent, and has presented no evidence that he exercised reasonable care in managing his account. The Petitions are denied. Respondent may collect $2,284.56 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹ The F-1 Handbook was revised effective November 1996. However, because the events relevant to this case arose before then, the April 1991 edition applies. The language stating the standard of liability is slightly different, but that difference has no bearing on the outcome of this case.