Manager tries unsucesful to collect $1,615.80 from supervisor salary because of loss around the time of the POS-ONE system at Delaware PO. http://www.usps.com/judicial/2001deci/dca00-482.htm
In the Matter of the Petition by ) February 21, 2001 ) ELEANOR RAINEY ) United States Postal Service ) at ) 123 Bridgeton Pike ) Mullica Hill, NJ 08062-9998 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-482 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Sheila A. Hagerich 1596 William Penn Avenue Johnstown, PA 15909-1764 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Richard M. Solomon Manager, Labor Relations United States Postal Service P.O. Box 9001 Bellmawr, NJ 08099-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Eleanor Rainey, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated November 20, 2000, from her supervisor. That Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,615.80 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in the unit reserve stock at the Greenville Branch of the Wilmington, Delaware Post Office.
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. The parties were given the opportunity to file additional evidence and argument, beyond what was filed with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties did so. The Postal Service submission included sworn declarations from James P. Lynch, Petitioner's predecessor in the Greenville office and Ann Yacucci, a postal systems coordinator. Petitioner submitted a notarized, but unsworn, letter. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner began working at the Greenville Branch of the Wilmington, Delaware Post Office on April 12, 2000. The nature of her initial assignment to that office is unclear, but it was intended that she eventually become the Branch Manager. On April 26, 2000, she and Mr. Lynch counted the unit reserve stock at Greenville, in preparation for Petitioner taking over from Mr. Lynch as custodian of that stock. (Rainey letter to Ms. Hagerich, Jan. 15, 2001; Lynch Declaration; Yacucci Declaration).
2. This count revealed a $400.00 shortage. There was no formal transfer of the account from Mr. Lynch to Petitioner, and no documents that recorded that transfer. At some point Petitioner became the Branch Manager, or Acting Branch Manager, but it is unclear exactly when that occurred. (Rainey letter; Yacucci Declaration; Lynch Declaration; Respondent's Jan. 22, 2001 submission, Ex. 4).
3. At some time in 1998 or 1999, a new computerized inventory management system called POS ONE had been installed in the Greenville office. Prior to coming to Greenville, Petitioner was not familiar with this system. Petitioner attended full-day training classes on this system on April 27-28 and May 5-6, 2000. Sometime thereafter, she was given a "log-on" identification that gave her access to the system. (Rainey letter; Yacucci Declaration; Respondent's Jan. 22, 2001 submission, Ex. 1).
4. On August 23, 2000, the unit reserve account was transferred from Petitioner to Becky Chalmers. Petitioner and Ms. Chalmers counted the stock and found it to be $1,615.80 short. The opening balance was $95,018.91, but the amount on hand was only $93,403.11. Petitioner signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the count. She added a note on the form, however, referring to a "prior count," and an "ongoing error," that "has yet to be reconciled." Ms. Chalmers also signed the Form 3294, noting that she was "A/Mgr effective 8/23/00." (Rainey letter; PS Form 571; PS Form 3294, and PS Form 3958, all attached to Answer).
5. On October 20, 2000, Denise Mason, Manager of Post Office Operations, issued Petitioner a letter of demand for $1,615.80, and on November 20, 2000, Ms. Mason issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (attachments to Petitioner's Supplement, December 18, 2000).1
DECISION
Petitioner states that her primary defense is that she did not take any stock, and that the Postal Service has presented no evidence that she did. She also argues that there were many problems in the Greenville office before she arrived and that the shortage may have existed before she took over the unit reserve.
Respondent's burden of proof in cases such as this is to show that there has been an actual loss of stamp stock or money from an account for which the Petitioner was responsible. Respondent is not required to prove that the employee is guilty of theft, or even negligence in most cases. Respondent's proof fails in this case, however, because the evidence does not show when Petitioner became accountable for the unit reserve stock at the Greenville Branch. Therefore, Respondent has failed to prove that the alleged loss from the unit reserve occurred while Petitioner was the custodian of the unit reserve, with exclusive access to that stock.
The evidence on this point is in conflict. It is agreed that Petitioner and Mr. Lynch counted the unit reserve on April 26, but there are no documents showing that Petitioner assumed control of the unit reserve on that date. Ms. Yacucci states that there are no "office transfer papers" when a new custodian takes over a unit reserve at a branch office. It is noted, however, that at the time of the transfer from Petitioner to Ms. Chalmers in August, there is a PS Form 3294 signed by both parties, on which Ms. Chalmers noted that she assumed the duties of acting manager on that date. (See Finding of Fact # 4). This is in accordance with the rules on "Transfer of Accountability," in §421 of Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), which states, "On Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, record the names of those involved, the date of the transfer, the accountability figures transferred, and signatures."
Petitioner states that Mr. Lynch continued to issue stock until June, when she got access to the POS ONE system. Mr. Lynch states that, "after the stock was counted by myself and Ms. Rainey I provided her with the keys and the safe combination was changed and I no longer had access to any of the accountable stock of the office." Although this is a sworn statement and normally would be given greater weight than Petitioner's unsworn statement, it contains little detail and is somewhat ambiguous as to the timing. That ambiguity is highlighted by comparison to Ms. Yacucci's statement. Her recollection is more consistent with Petitioner's statement. Ms. Yacucci states that she recommended that any reconciliation of apparent discrepancies in the April 26 count be delayed until a software update occurred and Ms. Rainey was trained on the new system. She then states that, "at some point, Ms. Rainey was given a POS log-on ID and trained on the system . . .." This could not have occurred until sometime after May 6, 2000. (See Finding of Fact #3).
Because it is unclear when Petitioner became the custodian of the unit reserve, Respondent has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the apparent loss occurred from an account for which Petitioner was exclusively responsible. Respondent also argues that the shortage is the result of Petitioner's "failure to adhere to established accountable procedures," and her failure in "the proper filing and maintaining of financial records." Respondent presented no evidence to prove what Petitioner failed to do, or how she failed to adhere to established procedures, however.
Several other issues raised by Petitioner are not relevant to the charged shortage, but because Respondent has not shown that a loss from the unit reserve occurred while Petitioner was the custodian, the Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $1,615.80 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
1 The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets states that the debt is $11,615.80, but that is clearly a typographical error, based on all other information in the case file.