01A30345_r
03-09-2004
Cheryl A. Woods v. United States Postal Service
01A30345
March 9, 2004
.
Cheryl A. Woods,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30345
Agency No. 4G-770-0383-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated September 19, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the July 30, 2002 settlement agreement into
which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
Management will post route schedules as per USPS procedures.
By letter to the agency dated August 19, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency breached the stated term when:
(1) Route 2708, vacation began on August 5, 2002 thru August 12, 2002.
This assignment was never posted. This assignment was double cased.
(2) Route 2731, Route 2764, Route 2766, vacation began on August 5,
2002, thru August 17, 2002. These assignments [were] posted on August 8,
2002, and awarded on August 10, 2002. When these assignments were posted,
no reporting time was posted.
(3) Route 2731 reporting time is 7:15 am or 7:30 am. Coworker A was
scheduled to report at 8:30 am. Route 2764 reporting time is 6:00 am.
Coworker B was scheduled to report at 7:30 am. Route 2766 reporting
time is 6:00 am. Coworker C was scheduled to report at 8:00 am.
In its September 19, 2002 final decision, the agency concluded that the
settlement agreement had not been breached.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at
any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties.
The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes a
contract between the employee and the agency, to which ordinary rules
of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further
held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard
to the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally
relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon O v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states
that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face,
its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument
without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery
Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
By letter dated January 12, 2004, the Station Manager stated that the
Supervisor reported to him that Route 2708 was not posted because it was
not vacant for more than five days. Additionally, the Station Manager
commented that Routes 2731, 2764, and 2766, were posted for in-station
bidding. Moreover, the Station Manager expressed that the Supervisor
and the Station Union Representative agreed to the reporting times of
the part-time flexible carriers assigned to the routes. The record
contains a copy of the Local Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
NALC 283/USPS Combined Associate Offices (2001-2006). The MOU states
that �[a]ll temporarily vacant assignments that will be vacant for five
days or more shall be posted for in-station bids . . .� The Commission
finds that complainant has failed to specifically indicate any �USPS
procedures� that have not been followed in the posting of route schedules.
Therefore, we find that complainant has failed to show that the agency
breached the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no settlement breach is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as
the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official agency head
or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and
official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your
case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to
file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be
filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right
to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
March 9, 2004
__________________
Date