In the Matter of the Petition by

VALERIE J. BUCHER
2925 Vousden Lane

at

Lakeland, FL 33801-3039

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 02-411 and DCA 02-433

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Valerie J. Bucher
2925 Vousden Lane
Lakeland, FL 33801-3039

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Cindy S. Beierlein
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1042
Tampa, FL 33607-7142

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Valerie J. Bucher, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated August 9, 2002.  Although the document was not so titled, and may have been prematurely issued, the document informed Ms. Bucher of her right to file a Petition and also stated that deductions from her pay would begin in 30 days.  Therefore, it was appropriate to treat this document as a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  The Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $67.61 from Petitioner's salary to recover a shortage found in Petitioner's flexible credit account.  This Petition was docketed as P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-411.

            Ms. Bucher filed a second Petition on August 27, 2002, in response to an August 26, 2002 memorandum from her supervisor that stated she owed the Postal Service $412.00 for a salary advance and $13.01 for another flexible credit shortage.  This Petition was docketed as P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-433.

            In a telephone conference on October 2, 2002, it was agreed that these cases would be decided on written submissions.  During that telephone conference, Petitioner stated that she had repaid the $412.00 salary advance, as evidenced by a receipt that she had filed.  Ms. Beierlein did not dispute that, and I informed the parties that I would assume this debt had been resolved unless evidence to the contrary was presented.  The parties were given additional time to submit other evidence and argument, beyond that submitted with the Petitions and the Answer.  Both parties did so.  Contrary to instructions given during the October 2, 2002, telephone conference, neither party filed any statements of witnesses who have knowledge of pertinent events.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  At the time pertinent to these cases, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Winter Haven, FL Main Post Office.  (Petitions and Answer).

            2.  Sometime in early 2002, Petitioner left the Main Post Office to work at another post office.  On August 9, 2002, Petitioner's supervisor, James St. Pierre, and a supervisory clerk, Joyce Cornell, counted Petitioner's window credit, apparently because her account had never been closed out and that needed to be done.  (Answer; St. Pierre memo, attached to Respondent's August 18, 2002 submission as Ex. 12).

            3.  Petitioner was not present to participate in the count, nor was any witness that she had previously designated.  Her account consisted only of cash.  The amount that should have been present as cash retained from the last business day, according to postal records, was $100.52, but only $32.91 was present, an apparent shortage of $67.61.  (PS Form 3294-C, attached to Petition).[1]

            4.  On August 9, 2002, Mr. St. Pierre issued Petitioner a combination letter of demand/Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  This was procedurally incorrect, but as noted above we have treated it as a Notice, and this case has proceeded.  (Attached to Petition).

            5.  At some time in 2002, Petitioner was given a salary advance of $412.00, which she repaid on September 13, 2002.  (Receipts attached to Petitioner's submission received on September 19, 2002).

DECISION

Respondent has not disputed Petitioner's evidence that the $412.00 salary advance has been repaid.  Respondent presented no evidence as to the alleged $13.01 flexible credit shortage.  Therefore, Petitioner cannot be held liable for either of these alleged debts that are the subject of the case docketed as P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-433.  The Petition in that case is granted.

            Petitioner makes several arguments as to the alleged $67.61 debt, but only one need be addressed.  Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), contains the following provision pertinent to employee audits:

426.2  Protecting Stamp Credits

         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.

This same provision is contained in the National Agreement between Respondent and Petitioner's union.[2]  Although Petitioner's account was apparently only a "cash retained" account, and included no stamp stock, I find nothing to indicate that the rule quoted above does not apply, and Respondent has made no argument that it does not.

            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.” Handbook F‑1, §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.  When a properly conducted inventory, or audit, shows a 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.

            The primary issue in this case is whether there was a "properly conducted inventory, or audit."  Petitioner argues that the audit was improper because her designated witness was not present.  The only evidence here is Mr. St. Pierre's August 9, 2002 note to Petitioner that accompanied the letter of demand, informing her that he and Ms. Cornell did the count, and that Ms. Cornell assisted because "your chosen witnesses were not available."  There is no statement from Mr. St. Pierre, or anyone else, explaining why Petitioner was not invited to participate in the count, why Petitioner's witnesses were not available, or why the count could not wait until either Petitioner or one of her witnesses was available.

            I conclude that the Postal Service failed to comply with the requirements of the quoted portion of §426, Handbook F-1.  Therefore, the results of the audit conducted by Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Cornell cannot be used to prove a shortage in Petitioner's account.  There being no other evidence to prove a loss, the Petition in P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-411 is granted.

            Both Petitions having been granted, Respondent may not collect money from Petitioner's salary for any of the debts alleged in these cases.

                                                                        Bruce R. Houston
                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge

     [1]  Copies of this form were also attached to the Answer and Respondent’s supplement, but the only legible copy is the one attached to the Petition.

     [2] Agreement between United States Postal Service and American Postal Workers Union 2000-2003, Article 28.1, Section C (Handbook EL-912).