Opinion ID: 204770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: If the AFSM-100 Settlement Were Meant to Apply to Jurisdictional Disputes, it Would be Void

Text: While the record indicates that the AFSM-100 Settlement was not intended to apply to jurisdictional disputes, if that had been the intent, the agreement would be void under RI-399. The terms of RI-399 provide that [a]ny settlement of a jurisdictional dispute must be a tripartite settlement. (App. at 196.) The Q & A, signed by USPS, APWU, and NPMHU, clarified that any bilateral settlement agreement purporting to resolve a jurisdictional dispute is not a proper settlement and is considered null and void. (Supp. App. at 55.) It does not matter that the AFSM-100 Settlement arose out of Article 15 of the CBA, rather than RI-399, because the Q & A explicitly says that the voiding rule applies even to settlements involving contracts other than RI-399, so long as they involve jurisdictional disputes. And it could not be otherwise without undermining the laudatory purpose of RI-399, which is to ensure that all concerned parties are involved in any resolution of a jurisdictional dispute. Thus, the RI-399 and the Q & A direct that any settlement agreement of any sort that purports to resolve a jurisdictional dispute must be tripartite and that any bipartite agreement is null and void. Consequently, even if the AFSM-100 Settlement were intended to apply to tripartite jurisdictional disputes, it would be void as merely a bipartite agreement.