01A12795_r
07-24-2002
Gary P. Galletta, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Gary P. Galletta v. United States Postal Service
01A12795
July 24, 2002
.
Gary P. Galletta,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A12795
Agency No. 4-E-800-0209-00
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed from the agency's decision finding no breach
of a July 20, 2000 settlement agreement. In the settlement agreement,
the parties agreed to:
(1) Review [complainant's] 2971's and negotiate the amount of annual
leave that will be credited back.
(2) Reimburse [complainant's leave without pay (LWOP)] taken during
[the] period of February 21 to April 1, 2000. Interest will be paid
[in accordance with] contractual provisions.
(3) Management will explore development of �Limited Light [D]uty� job
offers in writing subsequent to medical community recommendations and
produce such offers within 48 hours.
(4) [Complainant] will be considered for overtime work within contractual
limitations and within job limitations.
By letter to the agency dated January 10, 2001, complainant generally
alleged breach of the settlement agreement. The agency asked that
complainant provide more specific claims of breach. Complainant responded
by letter dated January 13, 2001, asserting that he was not credited
for the enforced annual leave or LWOP as required in provisions (1) and
(2). Complainant also contended that he was not provided with overtime
opportunities in accordance with provision (4), and that the agency had
not provided employees with limited duty assignment offers, in writing,
within forty-eight hours of receiving a form CA-17 as required by
provision (3).
The agency's final decision, dated February 8, 2001, found that
complainant received payment for annual leave and LWOP.<1> With regard to
provision (3), the agency found that management explored the development
of light-duty assignments with complainant, and changed complainant's
job responsibilities to make them more specific. The agency further
explained that complainant was considered for overtime in accordance
with contractual and job limitations. Therefore, the agency found no
breach of the settlement agreement.
Complainant contends that he was told �rehabs� like himself were not
allowed to work overtime. He notes that since the agreement was made,
he has been offered merely two hours of overtime. Concerning provision
(3), complainant asserts that the agency misinterpreted its requirements.
According to complainant, the provision was designed to require the
agency to abide by Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP)
regulations concerning light-duty job offers. Complainant contends
that the agency has breached this provision because a female coworker
submitted a CA-17 form, but did not receive a light-duty job assignment
as required by regulation.
Any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the
parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, is binding on both
parties. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a). 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 parties' intent as
expressed in the contract, not some unexpressed intention, 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 generally has 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 (5th Cir. 1984).
Complainant admits that the agency reimbursed him for all annual leave
and LWOP as outlined in the agreement. Therefore, the Commission finds
no breach of provisions (1) and (2). The Commission also finds no
breach of provision (3); complainant does not mention any instance where
the agency failed to provide him with a �limited light duty� position
within forty-eight hours of his submission of medical recommendations.
The experiences of complainant's coworker do not establish breach -
the settlement agreement does not apply to her. Finally, the Commission
finds no breach of provision (4). Complainant explains that he has only
been offered two hours of overtime, but does not identify any date when
he was denied overtime that he otherwise should have received within
contractual and job limitations.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no breach 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
July 24, 2002
__________________
Date
1Complainant subsequently acknowledged receipt
of payment for 27.17 hours of annual leave and 20 hours of LWOP.