Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3939
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- On May 9, 2013 DHS issued a final decision removing Alberto Garcia from the U.S. Border Patrol; Garcia received notice that day.
- The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) provides that requests for arbitration of adverse actions "must be filed ... not later than thirty (30) calendar days after the effective date of [the Agency's] action."
- The union mailed an arbitration request 28 days after the effective date; the Agency did not receive the letter until 35 days after the effective date.
- An arbitrator dismissed the grievance as untimely, construing "filed" to require actual receipt by the Agency and relying on federal court definitions of "file."
- Garcia appealed the arbitrator’s dismissal to the Federal Circuit; the court reviewed the CBA interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "filed" in the CBA requires mailing or actual receipt | Garcia: "Filed" is satisfied when the union mails the request within 30 days (mailing = filing) | Agency: "Filed" requires actual receipt by the Agency within 30 days | Court: "Filed" is satisfied by mailing before the 30-day deadline (use MSPB mailing rule) |
| Whether federal-court definitions of "file" control CBA interpretation | Garcia: Context of CBA (alternative to MSPB appeals) points to administrative mailing rules, not federal-court receipt rule | Agency: Arbitrator correctly relied on federal-court definitions (receipt rule) | Court: Administrative practice (MSPB/FLRA) is more contextually relevant than federal-court usage |
| Whether other CBA provisions (grievance provision) indicate a different meaning for "filed" | Garcia: Differences are explainable by differing triggering events and deadlines; no clear textual indication that mailing was excluded | Agency: Presence of express mailing language elsewhere shows parties meant receipt here | Court: Comparison is unpersuasive; provisions serve different triggers and do not prove receipt requirement |
| Whether the arbitrator’s dismissal should be upheld | Garcia: Timely mailing satisfies the CBA so dismissal was improper | Agency: Late receipt means untimely filing so dismissal correct | Court: Reversed arbitrator; remanded for further proceedings (mailing within 30 days suffices) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73 (United States Supreme Court) (interpreting "file" in a criminal appeal statute to require actual receipt)
- United States v. Doyle, 854 F.2d 771 (5th Cir.) (interpreting "filed" in civil/appellate procedure to require actual receipt)
- Huey v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 782 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir.) (treating initiation of arbitration as the mailing date, consistent with MSPB filing rules)
- Giove v. Dep’t of Transp., 230 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir.) (collective-bargaining agreement interpretation reviewed de novo)