Stephen J. Quiring, Petitioner, v. United States Postal Service, Respondent, 99 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 99 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Aug. 20, 1996

Before RICH, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

The United States Postal Service moves to dismiss Stephen J. Quiring's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Quiring moves for an extension of time, out of time, to file a response to the United States Postal Service's motion to dismiss. Quiring states that the Postal Service consents. The response has been submitted.

The Postal Service removed Quiring, a letter carrier, for unsatisfactory performance. Quiring filed a grievance pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers. In an April 8, 1996 decision, the arbitrator sustained Quiring's removal, determining that the Postal Service had just cause for the removal. This petition for review followed.

The Postal Service argues that this petition for review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Quiring contends that, as a civil service employee, he is entitled to appeal the arbitrator's decision to this court under 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f).

This court does not have jurisdiction over a Postal Service employee's petition for review of an arbitrator's decision rendered under a collective bargaining agreement. Burke v. United States Postal Service, 888 F.2d 833, 834 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The appeal rights of Postal Service workers are derived from the Postal Reorganization Act, not the Civil Service Reform Act. Thus, § 7121 is not applicable to the Postal Service. Basashihua v. Merit Sys. Protection Board, 811 F.2d 1498, 1501-02 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Postal Service's motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Quiring's motion for an extension of time to file a response is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.