0120150968
04-06-2016
Chauncey M.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Chauncey M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120150968
Agency No. 4J-606-0061-14
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's January 10, 2015 final decision, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Clerk, Bulk Mail Technician with the Business Mail Entry Unit, at the Agency's Cardiss Collins Processing and Distribution Center facility, in Chicago, Illinois.
On April 16, 2014, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an EEO matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) [The named management official] agrees to review the time and pay records of [Complainant] for pay periods 6 through 19, 2012, and issue PS Form 2240 (Other Hours Adjustment Request) to adjust pay and compensate [Complainant] for all unpaid Out-Of-Schedule pay he is due.
(2) This agreement constitutes a full and final settlement of all issues arising out of the subject matter of the [identified] Complaint Number 4J-606-0061-14; and
(3) 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.
On June 6, 2014, Complainant received 140 hours of "High Level premium pay." He asserts that he worked outside of this regularly scheduled workday and work week at the request of management and that his supervisor violated the procedure and "breached the settlement agreement by paying [Complainant] on days [his] Supervisor worked instead of out-of-schedule premium as agreed on April 16, 2014."
By letter to the Agency dated June 25, 2014, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency reinstate his complaint. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to pay him at the appropriate pay level, arguing that he was entitled to Out-of-Schedule premium pay when he was not acting. He cites the Employee Labor Relations Manual (ELM) in support of his position.
In its Determination, the Agency concluded that the Agency had not breached the settlement agreement. The Agency reasoned that the record contained evidence that indicates that the management official complied with the settlement agreement by reviewing Complainant's pay and time records and by processing the required pay adjustments, that the Agency determined was due to him, to compensate Complainant for the "out-of-schedule" premium pay. The record includes a list of the pay adjustments that were paid. The management official offered copies of clock rings and the PS Form 2240 as evidence of her review and the adjustments that were made. The Agency concluded that "the only days that [Complainant] was not provided out-of-schedule premium were days when [he was] acting in a higher level assignment, in a non-bargaining position, or on annual leave." The Agency found that there was no breach.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant restates his position that he was paid at an inappropriate level and that he was entitled to pay for the times he served as the backup Supervisor in the absence of his supervisor. He attached a copy of a document that was created after the Agreement which he says sets forth the dates that he believes his supervisor was absent during the pay periods.
ANALYSIS
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. Dep't of Def., 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. Dep't 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 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).
We find that the Agreement is valid and binding on both parties.
In the instant case, the Agreement did not specify the amount of the out-of-schedule pay that was due to Complainant. Instead, the Agreement required that the management official review the record, issue a PS Form 2240 to adjust pay, and compensate Complainant for all unpaid Out-of-Schedule pay he was due. The record contains sufficient evidence that the Agency complied with those specific terms.
Complainant offered a listing of dates when his supervisor was out that appears to be at odds with the listing provided by the management official who carried out the terms of the Agreement. Complainant and the Agency disagree as to the amount of pay that was due to Complainant, based on the Complainant's reading and interpretation of the ELM terms. Although there may be room for disagreement, our role is not to go beyond the expressed wording of the Agreement.
For these reasons, we find the record supports the Agency's Determination, finding no breach.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 6, 2016
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120150968
5
0120150968