0120150800
05-05-2015
Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120150800
Agency No. 1B-021-0014-14
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a letter of determination by the Agency dated December 22, 2014, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a June 20, 2014 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a matter which was pursued through the EEO complaint process. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. [Manager] agrees that for any dialogue he has with any employee that will have an impact on any other employee, a steward will be present at the discussion. Issues being addressed will be recorded in writing by management.
By letter to the Agency dated December 6, 2014, Complainant alleged breach of provision 1. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Manager had conversations with an employee without having a union steward present on several occasions, including November 21 and 28, 2014.
In its December 22, 2014 letter of determination, the Agency found no breach of provision 1. The Agency stated that according to the Manager, he stated that provision 1 provides that he would have a union steward present whenever he engages in a dialogue with an employee that would have an impact on other employees. The Manager also stated that provision 1 specifies that a union steward would be present only for these discussions that will have an impact on other employees. Furthermore, the Manager stated that the conversation he had with an employee on October 28, 2014, and November 21 and 28, 2014 did not result in any impact on any other employee.
The instant appeal followed.
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. 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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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).
In the instant case, the Agency complied with provision 1. Provision 1 of the agreement provides for an affirmative Agency obligation to assure that the Manager would assure that any dialogue he has with any employee that would have an impact on another employee, a union steward would be present during the discussion. The record contains a copy of the Manager's affidavit dated December 18, 2014. Therein, the Manager states "I have not had a conversation with any subordinate since entering into this agreement that has had an impact on another employee without the union's presence." The Manager further stated that his conversations on October 28, 2014, and November 21 and 28, 2014 "did not result in any impact on any other employee."
The record also contains a copy of another affidavit from the Manager dated January 28, 2015. Therein, the Manager stated that the second affidavit is an addendum to the December 18, 2014 affidavit. Specifically, the Manager stated that in the December 18, 2014 affidavit, he addressed the November 21 and 28, 2014 conversation but "did not consider the 11.21/14 and 11/28/14 conversations with a subordinate employee a violation of the 6/20/14 settlement agreement for the following reasons: "on 11.24.14, I was informed that an employee needed to work outside of his posted schedule. I called the employee and asked him why he was working. A subsequent conversation took place with this employee, who was accompanied by [Complainant], and the Vice-President of the APWU. During the conversation, it was determined that I erred and I acknowledged there was a misunderstanding on my part. No action was taken."
The Agency's determination of no breach of the December 22, 2014 settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
May 5, 2015
__________________
Date
2
0120150800
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120150800
5
0120150800