that, because the grievance procedure was not available to her to challenge her non-selection, she cannot be deemed to have made an election of remedies that bars the present action. This court, however, disagrees with plaintiffs contention that her non-selection for promotion involved an “appointment” for the purpose of 5 U.S.C. § 7121(c)(4). According to 5 U.S.C. § 7121(c)(4), a grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement may not extend to any grievance concerning an “examination, certification, or appointment.” However, the courts have held that the term “appointment,” for the purpose of this statute, relates solely to the initial appointment into the federal service. See, e.g., Suzal v. Director, United States Information Agency, 32 F.3d 574, 580 (D.C.Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); National Fed’n of Fed. Employees Local 1636
holding that there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure holding that a jail inmate does not have a constitutional entitlement to an adequate grievance procedure and the ineffectiveness or even absence of a grievance procedure does not give rise to a constitutional claim holding that employees grievance regarding the nonrenewal of his appointment was not precluded from grievance procedure as appointment referred only to initial appointment holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure holding that because plaintiffs were reasonable in interpreting defendants grievance procedure to apply only to active employees plaintiffs did not act in bad faith when they alleged that no applicable grievance procedure existed