01a54388_r
03-24-2006
Beth F. Santos, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Beth F. Santos v. United States Postal Service
01A54388
March 24, 2006
.
Beth F. Santos,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54388
Agency No. 1F-895-0004-05
DECISION
The record reveals that on April 8, 2005, complainant and the agency
entered into a settlement agreement regarding complainant's EEO complaint.
The settlement provided in pertinent part as follows:
That [Complainant] will be returned to work on April 16, 2005. She will
remain on Tour I with an extended probation. . . . The probation will
end one year from the date of this Agreement.
. . . .
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
OR to reinstate his or her complaint.
Subsequent to the execution of the settlement agreement, the agency
determined that the settlement agreement violated the collective
bargaining agreement by providing complainant with a one year probationary
period rather than a 90-day probationary period. The agency refused
to grant complainant reinstatement of her employment with a 90-day
probationary period. The agency instead reinstated the settled matter
and issued complainant a notice of right to file an EEO complaint.
Complainant subsequently filed a complaint on the settled matter and
by letter dated June 8, 2005, the agency accepted the complaint for
investigation.
By letter dated April 30, 2005, complainant claimed that the agency
breached the settlement agreement. The agency issued a final action
dated June 1, 2005, stating that the settlement agreement was null
and void because a one year probationary period is a violation of the
collective bargaining agreement. The agency noted that the probationary
period for a new employee under the collective bargaining agreement is
90 calendar days. According to the agency, attempts to renegotiate the
terms of the settlement agreement so as to be in compliance with the
collective bargaining agreement were not successful, and the settled
matter was therefore reinstated and complainant was provided notice
of her right to file an EEO complaint. On appeal, complainant requests
that the settlement agreement terms be changed from a one-year probation
to a 90-day probationary period.
The Commission has consistently held that settlement agreements are
contracts between the complainant and the agency, and 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, 381 (5th Cir. 1984).
The agency submitted a copy of what it states is the relative collective
bargaining agreement. Article 12, Section 12.1(A) of the collective
bargaining agreement provides that the probationary period for a new
employee shall be 90 calendar days. Complainant does not argue that the
collective bargaining has been misinterpreted by the agency in its June
1, 2005 decision. The Commission finds that the settlement agreement
is void because of the conflict with the terms of the agreement and the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement. There is no indication that
the agency entered the agreement in bad faith. Furthermore, there are
no other material terms of consideration in the agreement. The parties
were unable to reach an agreement after a determination was made that
the settlement violated the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore,
we find that the agency properly reinstated the settled matter.
The agency's decision finding no breach of the April 8, 2005 settlement
agreement 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
March 24, 2006
__________________
Date