The opinion
HANSON (Thaxton), Acting P. J.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the superior court’s order denying appellant’s petition to compel arbitration.
In my view the language of the sentence in article 23, section II of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) is clear and unequivocal and therefore does not lend itself to interpretation. That sentence states: “Nothing in this grievance procedure shall be construed to apply to matters for which a remedy is provided by provisions of Section 135 of the City Charter.” The parties are bound by the language in the MOÚ which provides for an election of remedies.
Here, Captain Buzzell has not been denied a remedy or due process. He exhausted his section 135 remedy and wants another bite at the apple by way of arbitration in pursuit of his objective. He is not entitled to a second bite at the apple since the MOU, to which he is bound, does not provide for concurrent or sequential remedies.
Nor does the argument that public policy favors arbitration compel granting Buzzell his second bite at the apple. Here, the alternative to granting arbitration does not result in labor strife. The agreed upon alternative of the MOU is a full and fair evidentiary hearing.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 13, 1984. Hanson, Acting P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 16, 1984.