P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-474
March 26, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
EARNEST L. DAVIS
7909 Saint Andrews Circle
at
Orlando, FL 32835-8197
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-474
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
William Brown
12 Mount Run
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753-7674
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Judi Stokowski
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
Post Office Box 999420
Mid Florida, FL 32799-9420
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Earnest Davis, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his supervisor on October 16, 2002. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $657.29 from Petitioner’s salary to recover financial losses in two accounts for which Petitioner was responsible.
A hearing was held in Orlando, Florida on January 29, 2003.[1] The Postal Service presented testimony from Gail Clements, a finance clerk who conducted training on the POS-ONE computerized stamp stock management system, Julie Vaccarella, Petitioner’s station manager at the time pertinent to this case, and Eileen Tayloe, postmaster at a neighboring office who assisted Petitioner in reviewing records and also conducted POS-ONE training. Petitioner testified in his own behalf, and both parties relied on documents filed with the Petition and the Answer. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a customer services supervisor at the Hiawassee Branch Post Office and the Pine Hills Branch Post Office, both in Orlando, Florida. Prior to this, he held other Postal Service positions, including seven years as a window clerk. He became custodian of the unit reserve stock at Hiawassee in July 1999 and at Pine Hills a short time later. (Tr. 40-41, 88, 97, 127).[2]
2. On August 1, 2001, Petitioner and Ms. Vaccarella conducted a count of the Pine Hills unit reserve and found it to be short $905.72. Office inventory records showed that $45,459.30 should have been present, but the amount counted was only $44,553.58. Both signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 43-45; PS Exs. 8-10).
3. Subsequent research of records by Petitioner found two errors made by himself and a verifying clerk in transferring stamp stock from the unit reserve to the retail floor stock at Pine Hills. One error on January 17, 2001 amounted to $400, and another on March 17, 2001 amounted to $399. Together, these reduced the unit reserve accountability by $799 and thus reduced the October 1, 2001 shortage to $106.72. (Tr. 45-46; PS Exs. 5-7).
4. On August 23, 2001, Petitioner and Ms. Vaccarella conducted a count of the Hiawassee unit reserve and found it to be short $3,040.10. Office inventory records showed that $95,294.77 should have been present, but the amount counted was only $92,254.67. Both signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating agreement with the accuracy of the count. Sometime thereafter, a previous $2,489.53 overage was credited against this shortage, reducing the shortage to $550.57. (Tr. 48-49; PS Exs. 15-17, 20, 25).
5. Sometime after the two August 2001 audits, Ms. Vaccarella asked Ms. Tayloe to assist Petitioner in looking through office records to determine whether there were additional errors that could account for the remaining shortages. Ms. Tayloe was unable to find any such errors, beyond those which Petitioner had already found. (Tr. 49-50, 67-68).
6. On May 31, 2002, Ms. Vaccarella issued Petitioner a letter of demand for $657.29 ($106.72 + $550.57). (PS Ex. 25, p. 3).
7. The POS-ONE system was installed at Hiawassee in July 1999 and at Pine Hills in May 2000. Petitioner’s training records show that he attended POS-ONE training on July 19-20, 1999. Part of the training is called “front office,” and is designed to show clerks how to make the proper entries into the system when conducting sales transactions. Another part is called “back office,” and is designed to teach supervisors and clerks who do daily close-outs how to make adjustments to accounts and to close the system at the end of a business day. This also includes training on how to make the necessary entries into the system when stamp stock is received into an account or issued out to another account. (Tr. 14-19, 63-65; PS Exs. 2 and 3).
8. The Postal Service does not conduct a training course, separate from the POS-ONE training, specifically to teach an employee how to be a unit reserve stamp stock custodian. (Tr. 29, 73).
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, §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.
Petitioner does not dispute the accuracy of either of the two audits, but makes two arguments that Respondent has not proved actual losses from either account. First, with regard to the Pine Hills shortage, he asserts that there was a $158 overage in the retail floor stock account on August 4, 2001, and that the closeness in time suggests that this overage should be offset against the August 1, 2001 shortage. The general rule on offsetting overages against shortages is that an offset is not appropriate unless there is evidence of a probable relationship between the two.[3] Petitioner argues that the closeness in time and the fact that retail floor stock is supplied from the unit reserve demonstrate a sufficient relationship (Tr. 116-19).
In some circumstances, this argument might be persuasive, but here Petitioner has presented no record of the floor stock count, and no testimony or documentary evidence to show a possible error in issuing stock from the unit reserve to the floor that might have caused the overage. To credit him with an overage merely because he says that there was a floor stock overage at approximately the same time is much too speculative.
Next, Petitioner argues that because he was able to find some errors that accounted for large portions of the original shortages found on August 1 and August 23, 2001, it is likely that the remaining shortages are also attributable to administrative errors rather than actual losses. Part of his argument here is that he was not skilled in operating the POS system and that it was easy to make errors. Again, this argument is based on speculation not supported by evidence. To the contrary, Ms. Tayloe testified that she and Petitioner searched for other errors, beyond those already found by Petitioner, and found none.
Finally, Petitioner argues that he was not adequately trained to handle a unit reserve account. This issue was the focus of most of the testimony at the hearing. The evidence shows that Petitioner had training in how to make the appropriate entries into the POS system when he received stock and when he issued stock to the floor. He also had training emphasizing the need to insure that stock transactions are accurately displayed on the computer screen when entries are made. The evidence also showed that, while Petitioner was relatively new in a supervisory position, he had several years experience as a window clerk and was familiar with the principles involved in maintaining stamp accountability.
While it is true that Petitioner received no specific training on how to be a stamp stock custodian, he has not persuasively demonstrated what particular training he lacked that prevented him from carrying out his duties. He knew that he was responsible for the unit reserve accounts and that he was required to keep accurate records of all transactions involving the unit reserve. The POS-ONE training he received was the same as that provided to other supervisors who performed duties as stamp stock custodians. Petitioner has not carried his burden of showing that Respondent did not adequately train him to perform his assigned duties.
Respondent’s evidence has established a loss of $657.29 from Petitioner’s accounts, and Petitioner has not shown that he “followed postal procedures” in performing his duties, or any other basis for relieving him of liability. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $657.29 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, VA. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.
[2] References to the hearing transcript are “Tr._.” References to numbered exhibits attached to the Postal Service Answer will be “PS Ex._.”