June 8, 2021

P.S. Docket No. DCA 20-182

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

JACQUELINE WAMSLEY v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Jacqueline Wamsley

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Lee J. Zysk
Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service seeks to collect $599.51 from Jacqueline Wamsley for a bank deposit shortage. For the reasons stated below, I grant the petition.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.       At the end of the business day on February 18, 2020, Ms. Wamsley prepared a deposit for the Cowen (WV) Post Office. To prepare the deposit, Ms. Wamsley followed the proper procedures of combining the money in her drawer with the other clerk’s money and checks, filling out the deposit slip, verifying the deposit against the consolidated count for the day, and sealing the cash and checks in the bag to be placed on the truck for deposit at the bank (Tr. 35-36). The deposit comprised $2,661 in cash and $93.45 in checks, for a total of $2,754.45. (Petition; Pet. Exh. 1; Tr. 63-65).
2.       On February 29, 2020, the Cowen Postmaster received an email from the Postal Service’s accounting help desk stating that the deposit in question was short $600 in cash. The postmaster and Ms. Wamsley immediately searched the office for the missing money but did not find it. (Tr. 15).
3.       The help desk then contacted the bank for further information. The bank responded that “the vault reviewed all the video footage and the deposit was double verified and the bag and surrounding area were checked. The vault determined it to be a true [sic] outage.” The bank also provided the help desk with a breakdown of the cash in the deposit. A comparison of the deposit slip to bank records shows a $600 shortage. (Pet. Exh. 3; Resp Exh. 2).
4.       The postmaster, at Ms. Wamsley’s request, tried to obtain more information from the bank, including video and photos from inside the vault during the count, to investigate the shortage. The bank did not, however, provide any further information. (Pet. Exh. 6; Tr. 21, 58-59).
5.       On March 17, 2020, the postmaster and Ms. Wamsley counted her drawer, which was fifty cents over (Tr. 19). Then, at the direction of the help desk, the shortage was entered into the retail system software as a shortage in Ms. Wamsley’s drawer, thereby assigning the debt to her account. The postmaster and Ms. Wamsley then recounted Ms. Wamsley’s drawer, which now of course showed a shortage of $599.51. (Resp. Exhs. 3, 4; Tr. 16-20).
6.       The Postal Service then issued a letter of demand to Ms. Wamsley for that amount (Resp. Exh. 4). This timely petition followed.

DECISION

The Postal Service seeks to hold Ms. Wamsley liable for the $599.51 shortage based on the bank deposit shortage. To do so, it must prove a shortage in an account for which Ms. Wamsley is accountable after a proper count. See Delgado v. United States Postal Service, DCA 19-154, DCA 19-155, AO 19-156, 2019 WL 6700241 (November 1, 2019). If the Postal Service proves there is a shortage, Ms. Wamsley may avoid accountability if she can prove that she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties. See Handbook EL-912, Agreement between the United States Postal Service and American Postal Workers Union (AFL-CIO), Article 28.1, Shortages in Fixed Credits (“Employees who are assigned fixed credits or vending credits shall be strictly accountable for the amount of the credit. If any shortage occurs, the employee shall be financially liable unless the employee exercises reasonable care in the performance of [their] duties.”).
The parties do not dispute that as a retail associate, Ms. Wamsley was covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or that her individual drawer—before it was combined with the other drawer—was a fixed credit. There is also no dispute over the fact that there was a $600 shortage in the deposit, thus establishing a loss to the Postal Service in that amount. The CBA, however, presents two problems for the Postal Service. First, once the drawers were combined, the CBA and other applicable regulations do not place accountability on Ms. Wamsley for the combined funds. See PO-209 Retail Operations Handbook, § 12-7.2, Cash Retained. Second, the bank deposit itself—which includes the combined funds of more than one drawer—is not a fixed credit. See F-101 Field Accounting Procedures, § 9-1.2, Banking Procedures for Postal Retail Units. The loss in this case is ultimately a shortage in the bank deposit, which, for accounting purposes, is not the same as Ms. Wamsley’s drawer.
But even if the bank deposit is not a fixed credit, Ms. Wamsley could still be held accountable if her own misdeeds directly caused the shortage. But no such transgression has been alleged in this case. See Ross v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-308, 2015 WL 13647633 (January 9, 2015) (personal accountability may attach where an employee’s misdeeds, such as theft, directly caused the shortage); see also Pearson v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-337, 2016 WL 10572243 (June 24, 2016) (an employee may owe the Postal Service a debt for postal property taken for personal use or gain).
On the other hand, even if the bank deposit is a fixed credit, Ms. Wamsley has shown that she used reasonable care in the performance of her close-out duties, relieving her of any accountability for the shortage. See Norris v. United States Postal Service, DCA 20-213, 2020 WL 7056007 (November 13, 2020). Ms. Wamsley credibly explained how she followed the proper procedures for preparing the deposit, including counting the funds multiple times and ensuring the deposit bag was secure (Tr. 64-66). Having followed the proper procedures when she prepared the deposit, Ms. Wamsley is not accountable for the loss.

ORDER

The Petition is granted. The Postal Service may not collect $599.51 by involuntary administrative salary offsets.

DIANE M. MEGO
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE