United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
November 19, 1999
ROCCINE TAYLOR, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, RESPONDENT.
Before Newman, Circuit Judge, Friedman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Rader,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.
This appeal arises from a petition for enforcement brought by Roccine Taylor, asserting that the Postal Service incorrectly calculated back pay that was owed to her following her reinstatement on order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The issues relate to overtime pay, holiday pay, and interest. The Board's decision is affirmed.
The Postal Service suspended and then removed Ms. Taylor, actions that were reversed by the MSPB on June 19, 1997 with directions to reinstate her to employment and provide back pay, interest, and restored benefits. Taylor v. United States Postal Service, 75 M.S.P.R. 322 (1997). After various proceedings, the Postal Service presented its calculations to the Board, made payment thereon, and made an additional payment on recalculation. The issues on appeal narrow to two grounds.
First, Ms. Taylor objects to the interpretation of the Postal Service regulation governing calculation of overtime hours for back pay. The applicable section, '436.411(a) of the Postal Service Employee and Labor Relations Manual, provides:
Overtime hours . . . are determined by averaging the number of hours that other employees of the office with the same employment status were assigned during the back pay period.
Ms. Taylor argues that the agency should have used the pool of employees on its Overtime Desired List, since that list most closely approximates the "same employment status." The Board found the Postal Service method, which was adopted upon negotiation with the Union and established use of an average figure, was reasonable and workable, citing Broadnax v. United States Postal Service, 35 M.S.P.R. 219, 226 (1987). Ms. Taylor has not shown otherwise. The Board's decision on this issue is sustained.
As a second ground of appeal, Ms. Taylor states that she had not been paid for the Martin Luther King holiday. The Board found that she had in fact been paid for the holiday; the record supports that finding.
© 1999 VersusLaw Inc.