01A30643_r
03-12-2004
Hazel E. Hanley, Complainant, v. Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Agency.
Hazel E. Hanley v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
01A30643
March 12, 2004
.
Hazel E. Hanley,
Complainant,
v.
Dale Cabaniss,
Chairman,
Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30643
Agency Nos. 2000-HAN, 2001-HAN
Hearing No. 320-A1-8136X
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated October 15, 2002, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of a July 27, 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 July 27, 2001 settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [Complainant's] position of record will be audited by an FLRA position
classification specialist within 60 days of the effective date of this
agreement to determine whether she is performing the work of a GS-14
Trial Specialist and/or a Senior Attorney. The audit will be conducted
according to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) position classification
standards and procedures.
(2) If the audit shows [complainant's] performance has been at the GS-14
level, [complainant] will be promoted to GS-14 retroactive to February
25, 2001.
(3) If the audit shows [complainant's] performance has been at the GS-13
level, and if [complainant] initiates a classification appeal to OPM,
the FLRA will expedite the forwarding of the classification appeal to OPM.
By letter to the agency dated September 9, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant
alleged that the agency's audit was not conducted fairly and that the
agency failed to act in good faith in classifying her position.
In its final decision, the agency determined that it had fully
complied with the terms of the agreement. In reaching this conclusion,
the agency indicated that the audit had been conducted according to
position classification standards and procedures established by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), as stipulated in the agreement.
In addition, the agency determined that pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement, complainant is to initiate an appeal to OPM if
she is dissatisfied with the outcome of the position classification.
The agreement also obligated the agency to expedite the forwarding of
the classification appeal to OPM, should complainant choose to file one.
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).
After review of the record, the Commission finds that the agency did not
breach the settlement agreement. The agency conducted a desk audit
of complainant's position as agreed by the parties. The Commission
notes that the settlement agreement did not specifically guarantee
complainant's promotion to the GS-14 level position. Moreover, as stated
in the agreement, any dissatisfaction complainant has with the results
of the classification should be raised with OPM.
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically discussed herein, the decision of the
agency finding no breach of the July 27, 2001 settlement agreement is
hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
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 12, 2004
__________________
Date