In the Matter of the Petition by

JOHN FLYNN
5057 44th Street

               at

Woodside, NY 11377-7319             P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-389

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:    John Flynn
                                                        5057 44th Street
                                                        Woodside, NY 11377-7319

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: James Wolahan
                                                         Labor Relations Specialist
                                                         United States Postal Service
                                                         James A. Farley Bldg., Room 3505
                                                         380 West 33rd Street
                                                         New York, NY 10199-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, John Flynn, filed a Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his supervisor. The Notice is neither dated, nor signed by a supervisor, nor does it show when Petitioner received it. However, as Respondent, the United States Postal Service, has demonstrated its intent to go forward with collection of the alleged debt, and has not challenged the timeliness of the Petition, these deficiencies will be overlooked. The Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $140.60 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in his flexible credit account.

Respondent filed its Answer on October 20, 2000, with documents pertaining to the shortage in issue. Because the Petition contained very little of the information required by the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §961.4, an Order dated October 24, 2000 directed Petitioner to file a statement explaining why he believed he did not owe the alleged debt, and to list any witnesses he would call at a hearing. The Order also directed Respondent to file any additional available information pertaining to the alleged debt. The parties were directed to reply by November 6, 2000.

When neither party replied, an Order dated November 27, 2000 told the parties that the case would be decided on the existing written record unless appropriate replies were received by December 11, 2000. Respondent replied, stating that the documents previously submitted constituted the full case file and were sufficient to establish Petitioner's liability. Petitioner filed no reply. ¹

1. At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Patchin Station in New York City. (Answer, Ex. 1).

2. Petitioner's account was audited by a supervisor on November 22, 1996, and found to be $140.60 short. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that he agreed with the accuracy of the count. (Answer, Ex. 2).

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 "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." 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 procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

The PS Form 3294 submitted by Respondent is prima facie evidence of a properly conducted audit. Petitioner has presented nothing to raise any doubt about the propriety, or accuracy, of the audit. Therefore, the Form 3294, signed by Petitioner on the day of the audit, proves a loss of $140.60.

Petitioner has presented no evidence to show any reason why he should be relieved of liability. The only issue he raised in his Petition was a claim that he never received a letter of demand and, therefore, was denied his right to file a grievance. As Petitioner was informed in the October 24 Order, any complaint about his right to file a grievance, or about how a grievance may have been handled, is outside the scope of a Debt Collection Act proceeding. Any complaint he has with the grievance process must be dealt with under the union/management agreement. He has been afforded his right under the Debt Collection Act to challenge the Postal Service's assertion that he owes the debt.

Because Respondent has proved the alleged loss and Petitioner has presented no basis for relieving him of liability, the Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $140.60 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹  A second Petition, filed by Mr. Flynn at the same time as this one, was docketed separately (Postal Service Docket No. DCA 00-388) and has been settled by the parties. That case was dismissed on December 20, 2000.