With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 441, 50 L.Ed.2d 427 (1976), concerning the distinction between the remedies available under Title VII and the National Labor Relations Act. Ninham, 583 F.Supp. at 1059. In Robbins & Myers, the Court faced the converse of the issue facing this court in the instant case, namely whether a plaintiffs use of a grievance procedure provided for in a collective bargaining agreement tolled the limitations period for filing a charge with the EEOC. 429 U.S. at 232-34, 97 S.Ct. 441. In its opinion, the Court reaffirmed the independence of Title VII procedures from other remedies derived from contracts and collective bargaining agreements. See id. at 236-37, 97 S.Ct. 441 (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 52-54, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454,

A: holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement
B: holding that arbitration pursuant to collective bargaining agreement is not res judicata and cannot collaterally estop a civil rights claim
C: holding that an arbitrators decision in arbitration undertaken pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is not binding on a plaintiff who pursues title vii remedies in court
D: holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union
C.