P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-295
November 25, 2008
ROSS A. PFAFF, JR.
P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-295
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Charles Scialla
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Gregory M. Filipski
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Ross Pfaff, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated September 2, 2008, from his postmaster. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intent to withhold $176.73 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in a cash reserve account for which Petitioner was responsible.
During a telephone conference with the parties on October 14, 2008, the parties agreed that this case would be decided on written submissions, and a schedule was set for the parties to file additional evidence and argument. Respondent has done so, and included a sworn declaration from the Buffalo, New York Postmaster.
Petitioner filed nothing beyond the documents included with the Petition. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been the Station Manager of the Williamsville Branch Post Office in Williamsville, New York since early 2007. Williamsville is a branch of the Buffalo Post Office. (Boardman Declaration).
2. In approximately February 2008, upon returning to Williamsville after a short detail away from the office, Petitioner accepted transfer of the unit reserve stamp stock account to him. (Pfaff letter to postmaster, attached to Answer as Ex. 1).
3. Sometime prior to July 16, 2008, an audit of the unit cash reserve account at Williamsville showed that account to be short $176.73. (Postmaster’s letter of indebtedness to Petitioner, July 16, 2008, attached to Petition).[1]
4. Postal procedures require that a cash reserve be maintained separately from a unit reserve stamp stock account, and that a PS Form 3369 be used “to assign the unit cash reserve to an individual who is directly accountable.”[2]
5. On September 2, 2008, the postmaster issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets and Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Hearing.[3]
DECISION
Respondent bears the burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. The issue here is whether Petitioner was accountable for the cash reserve. Although he filed no sworn statement, or any other evidence, he previously stated his position in a letter to the postmaster. He claimed that, although he accepted the transfer of the unit reserve stamp stock account, he never accepted the cash reserve account. He also claimed that, based on information from another employee, this account had been short since 2006 and was never corrected by those in charge at the time. Neither party presented any evidence to support, or refute, this claim.
Respondent presented no evidence that the cash reserve was actually assigned to Petitioner, nor do we have any evidence as to whom it was previously assigned. Respondent relies on the general proposition that it was Petitioner’s job as station manager to insure that all financial matters were handled properly, including insuring that someone was personally accountable for the cash reserve.
This is not a case where Petitioner has presented convincing evidence or argument, but Respondent’s case fails for lack of proof. We have said many times that the Debt Collection Act is not a vehicle for punishing poor job performance. Much of what the postmaster says, and Respondent argues, about Petitioner’s responsibilities is no doubt true. However, in the absence of evidence that the cash reserve account was assigned to Petitioner or that the loss was caused directly by Petitioner’s negligence, having overall responsibility for managing an office does not equate to personal financial liability.[4]
Because Respondent has not met its burden of proof, the Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $176.73 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] This finding is based solely on the postmaster’s letter and the fact that Petitioner has not challenged the assertion that this account was short as alleged. We have no record of the audit and no evidence as to who performed it, or when.
[2] Postal Service Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, Sections 13-4 and 13-8.1.1. Similar provisions on managing stamp stock and cash, as well as pertinent accounting procedures, were formerly found in Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures.
[3] Processing of this case was delayed briefly while the Postal Service took steps to repay to Petitioner money that had been prematurely withheld from his pay.