In the Matter of the Petition by                                

SHIRLEY WILLIFORD                                                                                                                                

P.S. Docket No. AO 09-129

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Albert E. Lum
Scialla Associates, Inc.

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  
George R. Adkisson
Manager, Labor Relations
United States Postal Service

INITIAL DECISION

            Petitioner, Shirley Williford, filed a Petition under 39 CFR Part 966, Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Administrative Offsets Initiated Against Former Employees of the Postal Service, challenging a determination by Respondent, United States Postal Service, that she is liable for a debt incurred in connection with her Postal Service employment.  At issue is accountability for a $5,457.42 stamp stock shortage discovered in the postal facility from which Petitioner retired as unit reserve custodian.

            A hearing was conducted in Memphis, Tennessee, with the undersigned Administrative Judge presiding by speaker telephone from Arlington, Virginia.  All other participants, including the court reporter, were present at the hearing site. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.         Petitioner was the supervisor of customer service at the Memphis Main Post Office, and served as that office’s unit reserve custodian (Hearing Transcript (Tr.) 11, 57, 80).  Petitioner worked for the Postal Service for over 42 years, including 12 years as unit reserve custodian.  She had a long record of good financial performance.  (Tr. 19-20, 58-59). 

            2.         In November 2008, Petitioner notified her management that she intended to retire at the end of the year (Tr. 20, 59).  Petitioner requested that her management ensure that a replacement unit reserve custodian be in place prior to her retirement (Tr. 20). 

            3.         Petitioner agreed to delay her retirement, and then retired effective January 31, 2009 (Tr. 61).  On her last day at work, at her retirement party, Petitioner asked her manager who would replace her as unit reserve custodian.  She was told that a replacement custodian had not been identified.  (Tr. 61-63, 80).

            4.         After Petitioner retired, she returned to work without pay for approximately seven days in early February.  Her purpose was to ensure a smooth transition for her eventual successor.  (Tr. 63, 72).

            5.         Three or four days after Petitioner’s retirement, while she was working without pay during the first week of February and prior to the unit reserve count at issue, she was instructed to turn over her keys to the unit reserve vault, the safe combination and control of the unit reserve to her replacement (Tr. 64, 80-82).

            6.         During the time that she was working without pay after her retirement, Petitioner participated in cleaning out the vault in which the unit reserve was secured.  However, she did not participate in a count of the stock in the unit reserve on which the debt at issue is based.  The count occurred on February 10, 2009, shortly after Petitioner stopped coming to work following her retirement.  The count was performed by one counter, who did not testify in this proceeding.  However, that sole counter noted on the count documents that Petitioner was “gone,” and that the counter was told by management to perform the audit.  Petitioner contests the accuracy of the count.  (Exhibit (Ex.) 3; Tr. 17-18, 25, 27-28, 32, 64-68, 85-87; but see Tr. 18-19, 26-27, 34-35).

            7.         Petitioner had designated another postal employee to serve as a counter to participate in unit reserve counts in her absence.  That counter did not participate in the February 10 count, and Respondent did not indicate that it contacted that replacement counter to do so.  (Tr. 87).

            8.         Comparison of the February 10 count against the stock expected to be present according to the Postal Service’s accounting system, reflected a shortage of $5,457.42 (Ex. 4; Tr. 15).

            9.         No credits or adjustments were made by Respondent to this shortage despite the discovery of stamp stock discovered thereafter that likely was attributable to the unit reserve (Tr. 45-47, 52-53, 55, 68-69, 74, 77, 79, 88).

            10.       On February 12, 2009, Respondent issued a Letter of Demand seeking $5,457.42 from Petitioner (Ex. 1), and Petitioner filed this Petition challenging that debt.

DECISION

            Postal Service Handbook F-1, Accounting and Reporting Policy, provides:

Managers, supervisors, employees, and contractors are responsible for accountable paper assigned to them and may be held liable for missing accountable paper, depending upon the circumstances of the loss.

Handbook F-1, §§ 4-11.1.1. 

           Respondent was not prepared for Petitioner’s retirement.  Despite having had notice of her impending retirement and despite Petitioner’s requests, Respondent did not identify a replacement unit reserve custodian until after she retired (Findings 2-3, 5).  Nonetheless, Petitioner returned to work, without pay, after her retirement, during which time she turned control of the unit reserve over to another employee upon instructions from post office management (Findings 4-6).  A count was not performed at that time, and I have found that the count on which Respondent relies for this asserted debt occurred after a period during which Petitioner lacked exclusive control of the unit reserve (Finding 6). 

           Moreover, the February 10 count was performed by only one person, in contravention of applicable procedures (Findings 6-7).  See Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, § 13-3.1 Counting Requirements (stamp credits must be counted by the accountable employee and another employee); §13-3.5 Physical Count (the two counting employees must enter independent counts, verify the items, resolve any discrepancies, and sign the count sheets).  Petitioner was neither present nor represented through no fault of her own, also in contravention of procedures (Findings 3-7).  See Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, § 3-8.3 Witness Requirements.  In these circumstances, the deficiencies in the timing and manner of the count, which are attributable to Respondent, are sufficient to invalidate the count as the basis of assessing liability against Petitioner.  Since no other evidence of an accountable shortage has been presented, Respondent has failed to show the existence of a shortage or any other basis for the indebtedness alleged.  See Valerie Bucher, P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 02-411 and DCA 02-433 (November 19, 2002); Joann Graham, P.S. Docket No. DCA 96‑386 (January 2, 1997).

           In addition, unrebutted evidence indicated that accountable stock (of an unquantified amount) was discovered after this count, but no adjustments were made to the accountability (Finding 9).  This further undercuts Respondent’s reliance on the count as a basis on which to impose accountability on Petitioner as the former unit reserve custodian.

           The Petition is granted.  Respondent may not offset the debt at issue from payments otherwise due Petitioner and must refund any money previously offset.

                                                                        Gary E. Shapiro
                                                                        Administrative Judge