01983779
07-28-2000
Ronald C. Jackson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ronald C. Jackson v. United States Postal Service
01983779
July 28, 2000
.
Ronald C. Jackson,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01983779
Agency No. 1F-914-1776-93
DECISION
The complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from
a final decision by the agency dated March 19, 1998, finding that
there were no breach of settlement agreement claims pending before the
agency.<1> The Commission accepts the complainant's appeal pursuant to
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659, 37,660 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b)).
The agency issued its final decision following a prior Commission
decision on a claim of non-compliance with the terms of an October 2,
1995 settlement agreement between the parties. Jackson v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01971282 (February 3, 1998). Therein,
the Commission found that the complainant had not proven that the agency
breached the following provision of the October 2, 1995 settlement
agreement on June 17, 1996:
Management affirms their policy to notify a shop steward within one
(1) hour of my request to see a shop steward. In the case where a shop
steward is not available, every attempt will be made to locate one as
soon as possible.
In addition, the Commission found that on appeal the complainant had
alleged that additional instances of alleged breach were pending before
the agency. The Commission ordered the agency to issue a new decision
on the complainant's new breach claims or to supplement the record with
a statement and evidence clarifying the status of the complainant's
additional breach claims.
In response to the Commission's decision, the agency issued the decision
at issue in this appeal. Therein, the agency explained its assessment
that there were no pending claims that were subject to processing as
breach claims.
On appeal, the complainant submits a copy of his informal complaint in
agency complaint number 1F-914-1010-96. Therein, he alleged that he was
denied a shop steward on several occasions in December 1995 and January
1996 based on his sex, age, and disability.
The record contains a copy of the decision of an Administrative Judge on
agency complaint number 1F-914-1010-96, EEOC Hearing No. 340-97-3121X.
Therein, the Administrative Judge found that the complainant had not
established that he was denied access to a shop steward. This factual
finding was accepted by the agency in a final decision dated December
3, 1998, and is binding on the parties absent a timely appeal to the
Commission or the filing of a timely complaint in the appropriate United
States District Court.
The Commission finds that the agency should have processed the
complainant's informal complainant claims of breach pursuant to EEOC
Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b) and, therefore, that the agency
improperly determined that there were no breach claims pending before it
in March 1998. However, the Commission finds that no purpose would be
served by remanding the breach claims to the agency for determination,
given the agency's prior acceptance of the Administrative Judge's
finding that the complainant had not established he had been denied
access to a shop steward.
CONCLUSION
Based on the Administrative Judge's finding described above, the
Commission finds that the complainant has not proven that the agency
breached a term of the October 2, 1995 settlement agreement between the
parties.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 28, 2000
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.