[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 9]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR1977.18]

[Page 196]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT 
                          OF LABOR (CONTINUED)
 
PART 1977_DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EM PLOY EES EX ER CIS ING RIGHTS 
 
Sec. 1977.18  Arbitration or other agency proceedings.

    (a) General. (1) An employee who files a complaint under section 
11(c) of the Act may also pursue remedies under grievance arbitration 
proceedings in collective bargaining agreements. In addition, the 
complainant may concurrently resort to other agencies for relief, such 
as the National Labor Relations Board. The Secretary's jurisdiction to 
entertain section 11(c) complaints, to investigate, and to determine 
whether discrimination has occurred, is independent of the jurisdiction 
of other agencies or bodies. The Secretary may file action in U.S. 
district court regardless of the pendency of other proceedings.
    (2) However, the Secretary also recognizes the national policy 
favoring voluntary resolution of disputes under procedures in collective 
bargaining agreements. See, e.g., Boy's Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 
398 U.S. 235 (1970); Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650 
(1965); Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 375 U.S. 261 (1964); Collier 
Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB No. 150 (1971). By the same token, due 
deference should be paid to the jurisdiction of other forums established 
to resolve disputes which may also be related to section 11(c) 
complaints.
    (3) Where a complainant is in fact pursuing remedies other than 
those provided by section 11(c), postponement of the Secretary's 
determination and deferral to the results of such proceedings may be in 
order. See, Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., v. U.S., 371 U.S. 156 (1962).
    (b) Postponement of determination. Postponement of determination 
would be justified where the rights asserted in other proceedings are 
substantially the same as rights under section 11(c) and those 
proceedings are not likely to violate the rights guaranteed by section 
11(c). The factual issues in such proceedings must be substantially the 
same as those raised by section 11(c) complaint, and the forum hearing 
the matter must have the power to determine the ultimate issue of 
discrimination. See Rios v. Reynolds Metals Co., F.2d (5th Cir., 1972), 
41 U.S.L.W. 1049 (Oct. 10, 1972); Newman v. Avco Corp., 451 F.2d 743 
(6th Cir., 1971).
    (c) Deferral to outcome of other proceedings. A determination to 
defer to the outcome of other proceedings initiated by a complainant 
must necessarily be made on a case-to-case basis, after careful scrutiny 
of all available information. Before deferring to the results of other 
proceedings, it must be clear that those proceedings dealt adequately 
with all factual issues, that the proceedings were fair, regular, and 
free of procedural infirmities, and that the outcome of the proceedings 
was not repugnant to the purpose and policy of the Act. In this regard, 
if such other actions initiated by a complainant are dismissed without 
adjudicatory hearing thereof, such dismissal will not ordinarily be 
regarded as determinative of the section 11(c) complaint.

                         Some Specific Subjects