Bruce D. Henry, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 16, 1999
01971191 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 16, 1999)

01971191

04-16-1999

Bruce D. Henry, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Bruce D. Henry v. United States Postal Service

01971191

April 16, 1999

Bruce D. Henry, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01971191

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant timely appealed the agency's decision with regard to the

alleged violation of a settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.402,

504(b); EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the EEO process is the appropriate

forum for appellant's allegation that the agency breached a settlement

agreement entered into under the grievance/arbitration process.

BACKGROUND

A grievance filed by appellant was resolved by a settlement agreement

entered into on April 22, 1996. The agreement stated in relevant part

that the arbitrator will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement

of this settlement agreement.

The record reveals that by letter dated November 12, 1996, appellant

claimed that the agency had breached the settlement agreement. Appellant

stated that the breach occurred in October 1996. Appellant also claimed

that he was subjected to reprisal.

In its final decision dated November 13, 1996, the agency noted

that the settlement agreement was entered into pursuant to the

grievance/arbitration process. The agency determined that the

EEOC Regulations do not apply to settlements executed under the

grievance/arbitration process, and that this matter is not properly

within the EEO forum. Appellant was provided with precomplaint forms

for his allegation of reprisal.

On appeal, appellant contends that the agency is denying him an

enforcement hearing before the arbitrator. Appellant cites specific

incidents to support his breach allegation.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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.

If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with

the terms of a settlement agreement or final decision, the complainant

shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance

within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the

alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of

the agreement be specifically implemented, or, alternatively, that the

complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing

ceased.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.504(b) provides that the agency shall

resolve the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing. If the

agency has not responded to the complainant, in writing, or if the

complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt to resolve the

matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for a determination

as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of the settlement

agreement or final decision. The complainant may file such an appeal

35 days after he or she has served the agency with the allegations of

noncompliance, but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her

receipt of an agency's determination.

Settlement agreements are contracts between appellant and the agency and

it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not

some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.

Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795

(August 23, 1990). In interpreting settlement agreements, the Commission

has applied the contract principle known as the "plain meaning rule"

which holds that where a writing is unambiguous on its face, its

meaning is determined from the four corners of the instrument without

resort to extrinsic evidence. Smith v. Defense Logistics Agency,

EEOC Appeal No. 01913570 (December 2, 1991). Moreover, other standard

contractual requirements such as the necessity of consideration, apply

in this context. Collins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05900082 (April 26, 1990); Shuman v. Department of the Navy, EEOC

Request No. 05900744 (July 20, 1990); Roberts v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01842193 (May 9, 1985).

In the instant matter, appellant alleged that the agency breached

the settlement agreement that was entered into pursuant to the

grievance/arbitration process. We find that appellant's allegation of

breach is a collateral attack on the arbitration process. The Commission

has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge

a collateral attack on another proceeding. Kleinman v. United States

Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 24,

1993). The proper forum for appellant to have raised his allegation of

breach is the grievance/arbitration process. It is inappropriate to now

attempt to use the EEO process to allege breach of a settlement agreement

that was entered into pursuant to the grievance/arbitration process.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

April 16, 1999

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations