01A22833_r
08-23-2002
Dale Rogers and Margaret Rogers, Complainants, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Dale Rogers and Margaret Rogers v. United States Postal Service
01A22833
August 23, 2002
.
Dale Rogers and Margaret Rogers,
Complainants,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A22833
Agency No. 4B-028-0097-01
DECISION
Complainants entered into a settlement agreement with the agency dated
August 23, 2001. On April 22, 2002, complainants filed a timely appeal
with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the agency dated
March 21, 2002, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of
the August 23, 2001 settlement agreement. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402;
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The August 23, 2001 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part,
that:
Management agrees that the work schedule for Dale Rogers [hereinafter
referred to as �complainant A�] will be 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Management agrees to continue this work schedule as long as it is
operationally feasible.
By letter to the agency dated March 4, 2002, complainants alleged that the
agency breached the settlement agreement and requested that the agency
specifically implement its terms. Specifically, complainants alleged
that the agency breached the agreement when it changed complainant A's
reporting time from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. on March 2, 2002.
In its March 21, 2002 final decision, the agency found no breach.
The agency determined that it was no longer operationally feasible to
allow complainant A to start work at 6:30 a.m. The agency maintained
that complainant A's later start time was necessary in order to improve
mail delivery; increase productivity; and increase its service scores.
Further, the agency maintained that the later start time was based upon
the arrival time of mail from the Providence Plant.
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 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).
The record reveals that complainant A is employed as a letter carrier at
the Providence, Rhode Island Post Office. The record further reveals
that on January 4, 2002, the agency notified all mail carriers that it
intended to change the starting time for all Providence mail carriers
effective January 26, 2002. The record further reveals that the agency
granted an extension to complainant A until March 2, 2002, during which
complainant could continue to begin work at 6:30 a.m., but would have
to report at 7:30 a.m. thereafter.
The Commission determines that the agency did not breach the settlement
agreement. The record contains a letter from the agency's Manager of
Customer Services wherein he stated that changing complainant A's starting
time to 7:30 a.m. was necessary to improve overall productivity; mail
delivery; and service scores. The Manager of Customer Services further
stated that the carriers in the Providence Post Office have a 7:30
a.m. starting time because it corresponds with the arrival time of the
mail from the Providence Processing and Distribution Center. Upon review,
the Commission determines that the change in complainant A's schedule was
necessary to further the legitimate business operations of the agency, and
find no evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by bad faith.
Moreover, we note that the agency scheduled complainant A to begin work
at 6:30 a.m. for over six months after the execution of the settlement
agreement. We find that the agency did not breach the agreement.
Accordingly, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's finding of no breach.
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
August 23, 2002
__________________
Date