0520130250
06-21-2013
John M. Cox, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
John M. Cox,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130250
Appeal No. 0120122982
Agency No. 4G-770-0162-12
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in John M. Cox v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122982 (December 13, 2012). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
In our previous decision, we affirmed the Agency's finding that it did not breach a May 9, 2012, settlement agreement between Complainant and the Agency. The agreement provided, in pertinent part, that
Both parties agree that local management will conduct mail count and street inspection on route 2455 on the next 4 Mondays that [Complainant] is working. Count and street inspection will be conducted by the Manager, [named individual] with the participation of a local union steward chosen by [Complainant]. By Friday, May 11 2012. Data collected will be utilized to manage route 2455 to the 17:00 window in the future.
The previous decision noted that, by letter dated May 17, 2012, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the agreement by failing to secure a union steward to participate in the mail count and street inspection. It also noted that the steward Complainant initially chose refused to participate in the inspection. Complainant argued on appeal that the Agency was responsible for securing the participation of a union steward and that a manager stated that he "would set up the whole thing with the union." The previous decision concluded that the record was clear about the parties' responsibilities and that the agreement obligated Complainant to choose a union steward to participate in the inspection.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that he fulfilled his responsibility by choosing a union steward, who declined to participate. He asserts that the agreement required him to "choose," but not to "procure" a union steward. Complainant also asserts, as he did on appeal, that the route examiner breached the agreement by assisting him with the delivery of mail. According to Complainant, the examiner's action distorted the data base of his route. Further, Complainant alleges that the Agency breached the agreement's provisions concerning inspection of the route on the next four Mondays that Complainant worked and the use of data to manage the route.
We remind Complainant that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here.
Complainant's assertion that the agreement did not require him to "procure" a union steward does not establish that the previous decision erred in finding that the Agency did not breach the settlement agreement. Nothing in the agreement states that the Agency will obtain the participation of a union steward. Similarly, nothing in the agreement addresses whether the individual conducting the inspection may assist Complainant with the delivery of mail. Finally, Complainant's May 17, 2012, letter raising the breach allegation did not assert that the Agency breached the provisions regarding a street inspection on four Mondays and the use of data. To the extent that Complainant is raising new allegations that the Agency breached the settlement agreement, he should notify the Agency's EEO Director in writing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120122982 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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
June 21, 2013
Date
2
0520130250
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520130250