0520140041
04-01-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140041
Appeal No. 0120113743
Agency No. 1E-971-0012-11
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120113743 (September 19, 2013). 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(c).
Our previous decision affirmed the Agency's final decision, which found that the Agency did not discriminate against Complainant on the bases of race, color, sex, disability, and reprisal for prior EEO activity when Complainant was denied a position that was previously awarded to him and when he was denied training for that position. In our previous decision, we noted that Complainant sought a voluntary transfer from his position as a Mail Processing Clerk to the Maintenance Craft. The Agency was preparing to "excess" positions and was negotiating with the union to allow employees who requested a craft change to change crafts before the excessing process. A Human Resources Specialist (HRS) initially informed Complainant that his request had been granted. The next day, however, an Operations Support Specialist informed the HRS that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) would be strictly followed and that the union would not allow Complainant to change crafts. The Agency rescinded the transfer offer after the union objected.
In our previous decision, we found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that Complainant failed to show that the articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. We noted that the CBA required the Agency to excess employees inside their craft before excessing them outside their craft; that the Agency followed the CBA; and that Complainant therefore was not allowed to transfer to a position in the Maintenance Craft or to receive training for that position. We concluded that there was no evidence that Complainant's protected classes were factors in any of the Agency's actions.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of Article 12 of the CBA. He also argues that Article 12 is erroneous because it gives the union and management the power to choose whom to place in higher-paying jobs. According to Complainant, management misinterprets and violates the CBA. Complainant further argues that the previous decision will have an impact on the Agency's policies, practices, and operations. In that regard, Complainant asserts that reversing the previous decision would allow the Commission to "correct a weak link" in the Agency's human resources practices. He asks the Commission to revise Article 12 of the CBA to provide for an open and fair promotion procedure.
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 arguments, which pertain to the CBA and his dissatisfaction with the agreement, are not grounds for reversing the previous decision's finding that Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, or reprisal for prior EEO activity.
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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120113743 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
April 1, 2014
Date
2
0520140041
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140041