01A30281_r
08-28-2003
Ralph D. Pillar, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ralph D. Pillar v. United States Postal Service
01A30281
August 28, 2003
.
Ralph D. Pillar,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30281
Agency No. 4I-630-0059-00
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission alleging that the agency
was in breach of the terms of a September 25, 2001 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The [agency] will provide Stress management classes to Complainant,
to commence before June 1, 2002. Complainant will be provided time on
the clock for the Stress Management class.
(2) Following successful completion of the stress management course work,
[Person A], Manager Customer Service at the University City Post Office
will compose and send a letter recommending Complainant for a temporary
detail as a 204B Acting Supervisor at a location other than the University
City Post Office.
(3) Every effort will be made to accommodate a request from Complainant
to attend the following training opportunities: 991 Preparation,
Mock Interview Class, ASP Orientation, ASP Tutoring, One-on-One Career
Counseling and the Career Awareness Conference. Complainant understands
that the availability of the training classes is dependent upon funding
becoming available for the same. At this point the Agency believes the
training classes may be offered beginning in February 2002. Complainant
also understands that each of these classes are given off the clock.
By letter to the agency dated June 3, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that the agency specifically reinstate his complaint for processing.
Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency failed to provide on
the clock Stress Management classes prior to June 1, 2002. Additionally,
complainant stated that since provision (1) was not fulfilled, the agency
also breached provision (2) since it failed to send a letter recommending
his for a temporary detail as a 204B Acting Supervisor at a location
other than the University City Office. Also with regard to provision (3),
complainant stated that there have been no training opportunities offered.
When the agency did not respond to complainant's breach allegation,
complainant filed the present appeal on July 29, 2002.
Subsequently, the agency issued a September 23, 2002 decision, concluding
that the settlement agreement had not been breached. The agency noted
that Person B, Labor Relations Specialist, was notified on July 8, 2002,
of complainant's breach claim and contacted the Postal Education and
Development Center (PEDC). Person B stated that a Stress Management
class customized for complainant was scheduled for August 7, 2002,
and when complainant did not attend it was rescheduled for September
5, 2002. The agency stated that according to Person A, there were
no classes scheduled for Headquarters during the relevant time frame.
Person A stated that there was also a career awareness conference that
complainant was made aware of but did not attend, which she claims was
also part of the settlement.
The record contains an affidavit from Person C, Human Resource Specialist,
stating that she received a call from Person A on July 15, 2002, inquiring
about a Stress Management class. Person C stated that she informed
Person A that there were no Stress Management classes going on at the
time, but there were Stress Management videos available for training
credit. Person C stated that normally such training consists of video
training or PSTN or Career Awareness Conferences may hold a classroom led
session, but only periodically. Person C explained that she developed
a structured one-on-one class for complainant to include: an overview
of managing stress with a powerpoint presentation on what stress is,
its effectiveness and how to cope, participation to include discussion
and light breathing exercise techniques, two stress management videos,
a packet with stress management information to be given in addition to
the Associate Supervisor Program application preparation and training.
Person C confirmed that the training was scheduled for August 7, 2002
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Person C stated that when complainant did
not show up, the training was rescheduled for September 5, 2002, from
8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Person C noted that once again complainant did
not attend.
The record contains a hand-written notice from complainant dated August
7, 2002, stating that he will not be attending the Stress Management
class scheduled for that date. Specifically, complainant states that
he is �not going to attend the stress management movie today because
[he] will not assist the [agency] in side stepping the law.�
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 present case, we note that the agency did not provide complainant
Stress Management classes to commence before June 1, 2002. The record
reflects, however, that upon notification of breach, the agency scheduled
a structured one-on-one Stress Management class for complainant to be
held on August 7, 2002. The record reveals that complainant agreed
to attend this class, however, he failed to show on August 7, 2002.
The agency rescheduled the class for September 5, 2002, and complainant
again failed to attend. With regard to provision (1), we find that
to the extent the agency breached the agreement, i.e., by failure to
provide the Stress Management class prior to June 1, 2002, we find that
any such breach was cured when the agency scheduled the appropriate
training class for August 7, 2002.
With regard to provision (2), we find that complainant failed to show
that the agency breached this provision. Provision (2) provided that
following successful completion of the Stress Management coursework,
Person A will send a letter recommending complainant for a temporary
detail as a 204B Acting Supervisor at a location other than the University
City Post Office. Since complainant has not yet completed the Stress
Management coursework, the agency requirement to send the recommendation
letter on complainant's behalf has not yet matured.
Finally, with regard to provision (3), we find that complainant has not
shown that the agency breached this provision. According to provision
(3), the agency is required to make every effort to accommodate a request
from complainant to attend specific training opportunities. The record
does not show, and complainant has not alleged, that he made a specific
request to attend any of the specified training classes. Therefore,
we find that complainant has not shown non-compliance by the agency with
regard to this provision.
Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
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 28, 2003
__________________
Date