Brown v. Holton Public Schools

• Decision Date: 08 July 1976
• Docket Number: No. 5,5
• Citation: 243 N.W.2d 255,397 Mich. 71
• Parties: , 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3617, 79 Lab.Cas. P 53,863 Bruce BROWN and the Holton Education Association, an Unincorporated Voluntary Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOLTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Board of Education of the Holton Public Schools, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 255

243 N.W.2d 255

397 Mich. 71, 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3617,

79 Lab.Cas. P 53,863

Bruce BROWN and the Holton Education Association, an Unincorporated Voluntary Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOLTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Board of Education of the Holton Public Schools, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 8, 1976.

Foster, Swift & Collins, P.C. by Lynwood E. Beekman, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Street, Stevens, Schuler, Johnson, Hipkiss, Piasecki & Knowlton by Harold M. Street, Muskegon, for defendants-appellees.

J. Douglas Korney, Gregory, Van Lopik & Higle, Detroit, for the Detroit Police Officers Association, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Bruce Brown was a probationary teacher for defendant Holton Public Schools. On March 26, 1973, the Holton school board decided not to issue a contract to Brown for the 1973--1974 school year. A letter dated April 4, 1973, bearing the superintendent's signature, notified Brown of the school board's action and advised him that the school board 'will be meeting Monday, April 9, and you are on the agenda for 7:00 p.m. if you would care to discuss this decision with them.' The contract between the school board and the Holton Education Association specifically provided that if there was a question of whether a teacher would be offered a contract, 'the teacher may have a hearing before the Board.' The hearing was eventually held on April 26, 1973. On May 7, 1973, the school board voted to 'uphold' its prior decision.

On May 11, 1973, Brown filed a grievance which stated he had been unjustly discharged. The Holton Education Association demanded arbitration, under the grievance procedure established in its contract with the school board. Having determined that the subject of the grievance was not within the scope of the contract, the school board declined to participate in the arbitration proceeding.

An arbitrator first found the grievance to be arbitrable and invited the school board to participate in the proceedings. The school board again declined. The arbitrator then rendered an award to Brown which required the school board to reemploy Brown under a teaching contract for the 1973--1974 school year.

The school board did not comply with the award of the arbitrator. Brown therefore filed a complaint in Muskegon Circuit Court to compel enforcement of the award. In an affirmative defense filed March 7, 1974, the school board alleged that the grievance was not timely filed, because plaintiff Brown had not met the contractual requirement that '(a)ny grievance filed under this contract must be filed within 30 days of know(ledge) about the grievable item'. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit judge granted the school board's motion on the grounds that the issue was not arbitrable and that the grievance was not timely filed:

'Plaintiff claims the time did not run from the announcement of the fact that the board was not renewing his contract (March 26, 197(3)) but from a refusal of the board to rescind its action on May 7, 1973. Such a tactic, would allow the indefinite extension of a right that is set for a definite 30 days. This could not have been the intention of the parties and the arbitration was clearly beyond the arbitrator's authority to assume jurisdiction in this matter.'

The Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit judge's opinion on timeliness and found that issue dispositive. 62 Mich.App. 328, 233 N.W.2d 274 (1975).

Procedural questions should be left to the arbitrator. John Wyley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). Timeliness has been considered a procedural matter. Carey v. General Electric Co., 315 F.2d 499 (C.A. 2, 1963); Local Lodge No. 595 of District No. 152 International Association of Machinists v. Howe Sound Co., 350 F.2d 508 (C.A. 3, ...