Paulv.Amaral, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 26, 2007
0120070629 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 26, 2007)

0120070629

09-26-2007

Paul V. Amaral, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Paul V. Amaral,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120070629

Agency No. 1B029000906

DECISION

JURISDICTION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

decision (FAD) by the agency dated October 6, 2006, finding that it was

in compliance with the terms of the May 23, 2006 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) when there is project work to be done on the weekend on Paul

Amaral's tour you will be the person used to oversee the custodial

workers.

By letter to the agency dated August 24, 2006, complainant alleged that

the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that

the agency implement its terms. Specifically, complainant alleged that

on August 12, 2006, the agency had Tour 3 custodial laborers working to

complete a project in a section of the facility. Complainant maintained

that he was not asked to oversee the work despite having previously

talked with the supervisor about the project. Complainant indicated

that he was told that he did not have to come in because it was a Tour

1 work area and Tour 3 was just helping out Tour 1.

When complainant questioned management's reason, he was told that he

could not be utilized to perform custodial work because, contractually,

custodians must first be given the opportunity, and they were available.

Complainant requests that he be paid for the hours he should have worked

on August 12, 2006, at his overtime rate with night differential and

interest or in the alternative, complainant requests that his complaint

be reinstated.

.

In its October 6, 2006 FAD, the agency concluded that it did not breach

the settlement agreement. The agency indicated that it was understood

that complainant would be brought in to oversee the custodial workers for

eight (8) hours of project work. However, management maintains that it

had to guarantee eight (8) hours of overtime when bringing in workers

on their non-scheduled day. The agency therefore, could not utilize

complainant on August 12, 2006, because there was no custodial work

for the three remaining hours since the work began at 6:00 p.m. and

ended at 11:00 p.m. The agency maintained that national and local

union agreements required that they first canvas the custodial workers

for overtime opportunities. The agency contends that it will continue

to use complainant on the weekends when there are eight (8) hours of

project work to be done.

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).

In the instant case, the Commission finds that pursuant to the plain

meaning rule the clause in dispute indicates that complainant will be

used when there is project work to be done on the weekend of his tour.

However, we note that the settlement agreement also contains a clause

which indicates that: "If the terms of this agreement are determined

to violate a provision of the applicable collective bargaining

agreement, this agreement will be null and void. In the event that

this agreement becomes null and void, the complainant will be allowed

to either renegotiate the terms of this agreement to be in compliance

with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or to reinstate his/her

complaint."

Therefore based on the evidence, we consider the agency's argument

to be an admission that the subject provision violates the collective

bargaining agreement. As such, pursuant to the terms of the settlement

agreement, we declare the agreement null and void. Complainant has the

option to either renegotiate the terms of the agreement with the agency

so that it is in compliance with the CBA or to have the agency reinstate

his EEO complaint from the point that processing ceased.

CONCLUSION

After a careful review of the record, the Commissions Remands this matter

to the agency in accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER

The agency, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, is ORDERED to send complainant a letter explaining that

the May 23, 2006 settlement agreement has been declared null and void

and that he now has the option of either renegotiating the terms of the

agreement with the agency so that the agreement is in compliance with the

CBA or having the agency reinstate his underlying EEO complaint from the

point that processing ceased. Complainant shall be given fifteen (15)

calendar days to respond to the agency's letter. If complainant does not

respond within the time period, the agency shall treat his non-response

as an election to have the agency reinstate his underlying EEO complaint

from the point that processing ceased. A copy of the agency's letter

and complainant's response, if any, must be submitted to the Compliance

Officer, as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement

of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the

right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).

Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on

the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled

"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.

A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying

complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)

(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

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 (R0900)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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

______9/26/07____________

Date

2

0120070629

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

5

0120070629