Central Point School Dist. No. 6 v. Employment Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1976 |
| Citation | 27 Or.App. 285,555 P.2d 1269 |
| Parties | , 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2126, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,095 CENTRAL POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, and District 6 Education Association, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Brian B. Mullen, Medford, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Ronald M. James, and Holmes, James & Clinkenbeard, Medford.
Henry H. Drummonds of Kulongoski, Heid, Durham & Drummonds, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.
Gary M. Bullock, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae for Gresham Grade School District No. 4.
Edward C. Harms, Jr., and Harms & Harold, Springfield, filed a brief amicus curiae for Oregon School Boards Association.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and FORT and LEE, JJ.
Petitioner Central Point School District No. 6 (the district) seeks judicial review of an Employment Relations Board (ERB) order that the district grant certain teaching contracts and accrued rights to two nontenured (probationary) teachers. 1
Respondent District 6 Education Association (the association) is the representative for a bargaining unit of certified (academic) employes of the school district. On June 11, 1974, the district and the association entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the 1974-75 school year. Article 3 of the agreement deals with employe grievances. It provides in part:
'Section I : Definition of a Grievance
'Grievance shall mean a complaint by an employee or group of employees:
Article 3 goes on to provide a six-level procedure for resolving grievances, the last being binding arbitration.
During the 1974-75 academic year the two teachers involved in this case were informed that their contracts would not be renewed for the 1975-76 year. Both filed grievances under the collective bargaining agreement, basing their grievances on Article 3, Sec. I, § 2 of the agreement, supra. They contended that: (1) the district had not followed established district policies and practices when it evaluated them for renewal; (2) noncompliance with these contract renewal policies and procedures was inequitable and affected them as employes; and (3) the grievance procedure, including binding arbitration, was thus available as a means of determining the validity of the decisions to not renew. Since both teachers taught with the district for three years before their nonrenewal, the grant of 1975-76 contracts would remove them from probationary status and, in effect, grant them tenure.
The grievances were processed through the first five levels of the grievance procedure without a resolution of the dispute. The teachers therefore requested binding arbitration. After cooperating in the selection of the arbitration board, the district initiated declaratory judgment proceedings and obtained a temporary restraining order against conducting arbitration. 2 However, the order was lifted after two days and an arbitration hearing, in which the district declined to participate, 3 was held. At this juncture the association filed an unfair-labor-practice complaint with ERB for failure to submit to arbitration, and the arbitration board ruled that the teachers in question should be awarded 1975-76 contracts.
The district refused to comply with the arbitration award. This refusal prompted the association to file a second unfair-labor-practice complaint with ERB. The second complaint alleged violation of ORS 243.672(1)(g) (). 4 The district did not file an answer to the complaint, and it did not appear at the hearing on the complaint. The board agent conducting the hearing concluded that: (1) the district's refusal to comply with the arbitration award was an unfair labor practice; and (2) the teachers were entitled to 1975-76 contracts and all rights and benefits which would have accrued had their employment not been interrupted, including back pay and tenure.
On March 22, 1976, after a hearing at which all parties were represented, the ERB dismissed the first unfair-labor-practice complaint as moot, adopted the conclusions the board agent had reached after the hearing on the second complaint, and ordered the district to grant the teachers contracts and all accrued rights. This petition for review followed.
The district's petition raises the following question: To what extent, if any, can subjects relating to teacher retention lawfully be made subjects of binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement? We note here that this case does not involve an agreement to arbitrate disputes over a determination that, on the merits, a teacher is not performing satisfactorily.
The substance of the district's argument seems to be that it can validly bargain over matters concerning the process by which teacher-renewal decisions are made, but that it cannot validly agree to arbitrate disputes over whether the agreed process is being followed. In support of this argument, the district relies solely on ORS 342.835, which gives school boards the authority to dismiss or not renew probationary teachers. ORS 342.835(2) reads:
Although this provision does not expressly prohibit arbitration of the subjects involved in this case, the district asserts that a legislative intent to create such a prohibition must be inferred from a recent amendment to ORS 342.835. The amendment guarantees dismissed or nonrenewed probationary teachers the right to a hearing, and adds:
'(3) If an appeal is taken from any hearing, the appeal shall be limited to:
'(a) The procedures at the hearing;
'(b) Whether the written copy of reasons for dismissal required by this section was supplied; and
'(c) In the case of nonrenewal whether notice of nonrenewal was timely given.' ORS 342.835(3), Oregon Laws 1975, ch. 727, p. 1991.
The district argues that the legislature has limited the scope of review in appeals from these hearings to procedural matters because the ultimate responsibility for renewal decisions rests with the school district alone. Based on this argument, the district concludes that its agreement to arbitrate is invalid because it is tantamount to relinquishing control over teacher-renewal decisions. 5
We are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mindemann v. Independent School Dist. No. 6 of Caddo County
...for nonrenewal of a probationary teacher, relying on Attorney General Opinion No. 87-20 3 and Central Point School District v. Employment Relations Board, 27 Or.App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976). The opinion however did not address the second issue concerning the arbitrability of school board ......
-
Circuit Court of Oregon, Fifteenth Judicial Dist., Juvenile Judge v. AFSCME, Local 502-A
...one for purposes of the issues in this appeal, and the term "petitioner" in this opinion refers to him.6 'See Central Point Sch. Dist. v. ERB, 27 Or.App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976), rev den (277 Or. 491) (1977). ' 49 Or.App. at 352-54, 619 P.2d 1307. (Emphasis in original.)2 The choice of th......
-
Eyre v. Big Bend Community College
...Board of Educ. v. Chautauqua Cent. Sch. Teachers Ass'n, 41 A.D.2d 47, 341 N.Y.S.2d 690 (1973); Central Point Sch. Dist. 6 v. Employment Relations Bd., 27 Or.App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976); Fries v. Wessington Sch. Dist. 2-4, 307 N.W.2d 875 (S.D.1981). But see Illinois Educ. Ass'n Local Comm......
-
Leanord v. Board of Directors of Jackson County Rural Fire Dist. No. 3
...204 (1976); see also East Co. Bargaining Council v. Centennial Sch. Dist., 298 Or. 146, 689 P.2d 958 (1984); Central Point Sch. Dist. v. ERB, 27 Or.App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976), rev. den. 277 Or. 491 (1977). A discharge of an employe in violation of the agreement would constitute at least......