01A03759
06-14-2001
Jan Stringer, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jan Stringer v. United States Postal Service
01A03759
June 14, 2001
.
Jan Stringer,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A03759
Agency No. 4A-105-0010-98
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision by the agency dated June 1, 2000, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the June 22, 1999 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The complainant will be paid 3.65 hours at the penalty overtime rate
for pay period (18) week (one) day (seven) 1997;
(2) The complainant will also receive 60 hours restored to his sick
leave balance for December 2, through December 11, 1997;
(3) The complainant will receive 40 hours of annual leave for time used
during January 12, 1998, through January 17, 1998;
(4) Management agrees to expunge prior elements of discipline dated
September 16, 1998 (7 day suspension).
By letter to the agency, complainant alleged that the agency was in breach
of the settlement agreement, and requested that the agency specifically
implement the terms of the agreement or, alternatively, that the complaint
be reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased.<1>
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to comply with
provisions (1), (2), and (3) of the settlement agreement.
In its June 1, 2000 final decision, the agency concluded that the agency
was not in breach of the settlement agreement. Specifically, the agency
stated that complainant was paid 3.65 hours of penalty overtime in Pay
Period 18, week 1, 1997. In addition, the agency stated that complainant
received credit for 60 hours of sick leave (20 hours for pay period
25, week 2, of 1997 and 40 hours for pay period 26, week 1, of 1997).
The agency also stated that complainant received credit for 40 hours
of Annual Leave (32 hours for pay period 2, week 2, of 1998 and 8 hours
for pay period 3, week 1, of 1998).
On appeal, complainant notes that he was credited with 100 hours of
leave in accordance with the settlement agreement. Complainant states,
however, that the agency has not paid him penalty overtime plus interest.
Complainant states that he worked 6 hours of overtime within the
disputed time frame but claims that he was paid for only about half of
that time (3.65 hours). Thus, complainant argues that he should be paid
the remaining difference, approximately 3.10 hours of penalty overtime
plus interest.
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).
In the present case, we find that the agency did not breach the June
22, 1999 settlement agreement. The settlement agreement states that
complainant will be paid a total of 3.65 hours of penalty overtime for the
relevant period. Furthermore, the settlement agreement did not state that
complainant would be paid interest on the 3.65 hours of penalty overtime.
The record contains a copy of complainant's pay stub which shows that he
was paid 3.65 hours of penalty overtime in week 1 of pay period 18, 1997.
On appeal, complainant admits that he was credited with the agreed upon
100 hours of leave. Thus, we find that the agency fulfilled the terms
of the June 22, 1999 settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the agency's decision that it did not breach the settlement
agreement was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
June 14, 2001
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1Complainant contends that he notified the agency in November 1999,
that he believed the agency was not complying with the terms of the
settlement agreement. The record contains a copy of a letter dated
November 30, 1999, addressed to the Senior Labor Relations Specialist
in which complainant alleges that the agency failed to pay him the 3.65
hours of penalty overtime with interest from 1997 and the 60 hours of
sick time stated in the settlement agreement. The agency claims that it
was not aware of complainant's breach allegation until April 10, 2000,
and thus on appeal argues that complainant's appeal which was filed
on April 17, 2000, was prematurely filed. As the agency addresses the
merits of complainant's breach allegation, this decision will be based
on the merits of complainant's claim.