Board of Educ. of Carroll County v. Carroll County Educ. Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 501,501
• Citation: 452 A.2d 1316,53 Md.App. 355
• Parties: , 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2850, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 70 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CARROLL COUNTY v. CARROLL COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 355

53 Md.App. 355

452 A.2d 1316, 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2850,

8 Ed. Law Rep. 70

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CARROLL COUNTY v. CARROLL COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 501.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 9, 1982.

Edward J. Gutman, Baltimore, with whom was Rochelle S. Eisenberg, Baltimore, on brief, for appellant.

James R. Whattam, Baltimore, with whom was Walter S. Levin, Baltimore, on brief, for appellee.

Argued before MOYLAN, LOWE and LISS, JJ.

LOWE, Judge.

The primary issue in this case is whether a binding arbitration agreement between the Board of Education of Carroll County (Board) and the Carroll County Education Association, Inc. (CCEA) contemplated determinations of tenure. Alternatively, if it did so contemplate, was the Board authorized to have delegated its authority or responsibility of screening teachers to an independent arbitrator through such an agreement?

The issues were presented to the Circuit Court for Carroll County by a Bill of Complaint for Declaratory Relief predicated upon a grievance filed by Lyndi Wickless, a nontenured teacher who was timely notified within the 2-year pretenure period, that her employment was to be terminated. Following a hearing, the trial judge decided that the arbitration agreement provided the arbitrator with authority coextensive with that which the State Board of Education derived by statute. Among other things, he declared that:

"(1) An arbitrator has the power and authority under the Master Agreement to issue a binding award requiring the reinstatement of nontenured teachers who are nonrenewed in violation of the requirements set forth in said Agreement, even if such reinstatement vests the teacher with tenure; and

(2) The Maryland State Board of Education does not have the sole and exclusive power and authority to hear and decide disputes concerning the reinstatement of nontenured teachers, even if such reinstatement vests said teacher with tenure."

The trial judge was impressed by the holdings of other state courts, especially New Jersey and Oregon.

"... we note that courts of other states, faced with factual situations strikingly similar to those of the instant case, have come to the same conclusions we have reached. We are particularly impressed with the reasoning of the courts in Board of Education of Fair Lawn v. Fair Lawn Education Ass'n, 174 N.J.Super. 554, 417 A.2d 76 (1980); Newark Teachers Union v. Board of Education, City of Newark, 149 N.J.Super. 367, 373 A.2d 1020 (1977); and Central Point School Dist. No. 6 v. Employment Relations Board, 27 Or.App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976)."

We do not agree with the courts' declaration, nor are we impressed by the out-of-state cases it relied upon. We see no purpose in going beyond the language of the agreement and that of our own State's statutes. Within the arbitration clause of the Grievance Procedure in the arbitration agreement, there appears a clear limitation upon the arbitrator's authority denying him any right to usurp the prerogatives or responsibilities of the School Board as that Board was statutorily charged.

"In no event shall any arbitrator have the power to pass any award which will in any way deprive the School Board of Carroll County of any of its powers delegated to it by law nor may such arbitrator pass any monetary awards which would require the School Board to go beyond the budget in existence at the time the grievance arises." (Emphasis added).

In light of that clear contractual proscription, we need but inquire whether the granting or withholding of tenure is a power delegated to the School Board of Carroll County by law. The statutory chain of responsibility from the General Assembly, delegated through the State School Board to the local boards of education, clearly spells out that the local board has express authority "delegated by law" to determine tenure.

Md.Educ.Code Ann., § 6-202(b) authorizes the State Board of Education to provide a probationary period of employment by bylaw not to exceed two years. Such bylaws, rules or regulations, of course, have the force of law in each county when properly enacted. Educ., § 2-205(c)(2) and (3). Within these limitations, however, the Education Article of the Maryland Code provides that the qualifications, tenure and compensation of appointees "shall be determined by the county board." § 6-201(f).

To provide some measure of uniformity among the divergent counties, the State Board required the enactment of guidelines for the evaluation of probationary teachers within limitations provided by it. Bd. of Educ. of A.A. Co. v. Barbano, 45 Md.App. 27, 30, 411 A.2d 124 (1980). But except to assure compliance with such procedural prerequisites, it is the local board's discretion exercised in determining tenure and not that of any other person or entity. Absent statutory authority to the contrary, a local board could not delegate that authority even if it had expressly done so in an agreement rather than having expressly reserved its...