Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist. No. 6, Counties of Manistee, Et Al. v. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass'n

• Decision Date: 01 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 15,KALEVA-NORMAN-DICKSON,15
• Citation: 393 Mich. 583,89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2078,227 N.W.2d 500
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6, COUNTIES OF MANISTEE ET AL., Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHOOL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, a voluntary unincorporated association, and Joy Urka, Defendants-Appellants. ,
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 500

227 N.W.2d 500

393 Mich. 583 KALEVA-NORMAN-DICKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 COUNTIES OF MANISTEE ET AL., Michigan Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KALEVA-NORMAN-DICKSON SCHOOL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, a voluntary unincorporated association, and Joy Urka, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 15, March Term, 1975.

393 Mich. 583, 227 N.W.2d 500, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2078,

77 Lab.Cas. P 53,705

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 7, 1975.

Thrun, Maatsch & Nordberg by Thomas J. Nordberg, W. Peter Doren, Donald J. Bonato, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.

Foster, Lindemer, Swift & Collins, P.C. by James A. White, David W. McKeague, Lansing, for defendants-appellants.

Before the Entire Bench.

LEVIN, Justice.

The question concerns the extent of a court's inquiry when a party to a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause seeks to enjoin arbitration of a grievance involving an issue of contract interpretation on the ground that the dispute is not within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate.

Joy Urka, a member of the Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Association (the union), was a certified, probationary (nontenured) teacher under contract with the Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District (the board) for the 1971--1972 school year. In March, 1972, pursuant to provisions of the Teachers' Tenure Act, ¹ she was notified in writing that her contract would not be renewed.

Urka filed a grievance asserting that non-renewal of her contract violated the collective bargaining agreement. Urka was not satisfied with the resolution of her grievance and the union demanded arbitration pursuant to a provision of the agreement.

The board refused to submit to arbitration and sought injunctive relief in the circuit court. That court found that Urka's claim was not arbitrable under the agreement and entered a permanent injunction.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse and dissolve the injunction barring arbitration.

I

Under the Teachers' Tenure Act all teachers during the first two years of employment are on probation. ² As probationary teachers, their services may be discontinued on written notice at 'least 60 days before the close of the school year.' ³ The board timely gave such notice. It is not contended that the proposed termination of Urka's employment violates the Teachers' Tenure Act.

It is, rather, the claim of the union and Urka that under the collective bargaining agreement the board limited its right under the Act to discontinue the employment of a probationary teacher. The board counters that the right under the Act not to renew the contract of a probationary teacher is explicitly reserved to the board under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

All agree that the question of arbitrability is for a court.

Arbitration is a matter of contract. ⁴ A party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue which he has not agreed to submit to arbitration. ⁵

The collective bargaining agreement between the union and the board provides in pertinent part:

'ARTICLE XIV.

'Professional Grievance Procedure

'A. Any teacher, group of teachers or the Association believing that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any provision of this Agreement or any other provision of law except a statute ⁶ specifically establishing a procedure for redress relating to wages, hours, terms or conditions of employment, may file a written grievance * * *.

'E. If the Board, the aggrieved employee, and the Association shall be unable to resolve any grievance through mediation, and it shall involve an alleged violation of a specific article and section of this agreement, it may, within ten school days, after mediation has been exhausted, be appealed to arbitration. * * *

'The arbitrator shall have no power to alter, modify, add to, or subtract from the provisions of this agreement.

'His authority shall be limited to deciding whether a specific article and section of this agreement has been violated and shall be subject to, in all cases, the rights, responsibilities and authority of the parties under the Michigan General School Laws or any other national, state, county, district or local laws. The arbitrator shall not usurp the functions of the Board or the proper exercise of its judgment and discretion under law and this agreement.

'The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding.'

'ARTICLE II

'Board Rights

'A. The Board, on its own behalf and on behalf of the electors of the district hereby retains and reserves unto itself without limitations, all powers, rights, authority, duties, and responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by the laws and the Constitution of the State of Michigan, and of the United States, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the right: * * *

'2. To hire all employees and subject to the provisions of law, to determine their qualifications, and the conditions for their continued employment or their dismissal or demotion; and to promote, and transfer all such employees, except as hereinafter provided. * * *

'B. The exercise of the foregoing powers, right, authority, duties, and responsibilities by the Board, the adoption of policies, rules, regulations and practices in furtherance thereof, and the use of judgment and discretion in connection therewith shall be limited only by the specific and express terms hereof in conformance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, and the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

'C. Nothing contained herein shall be considered to deny or restrict the Board of its rights, responsibilities, and authority under the Michigan General School Laws or any other national, state, county, district, or local laws or regulations as they pertain to education.'

'ARTICLE XI.

'Teacher Evaluation

'A. Probationary teachers will be evaluated at least two times during each year and tenure teachers will be evaluated at least once during each year, by their Principal. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly. A written report shall be completed and signed by the Principal and the teacher. A copy of the evaluation is to be placed in the teacher's personal file, and a teacher may also confer with the Superintendent regarding his evaluation.

'B. Each teacher shall have the right, upon a written request to the administration, to review the contents of his own personal file other than confidential materials. A representative of the Association may, at the teacher's request, accompany the teacher in this review.

'C. No teacher shall be disciplined, reprimanded, reduced in rank or compensation, or deprived of any professional advantage without just cause.

The board's complaint in the circuit court alleged that when Urka was notified in writing that her services would be discontinued she was advised that her services were 'not satisfactory.' ⁷

The union and Urka contend that the non-renewal of Urka's contract violated Art. XI(C) of the collective bargaining agreement ⁸ and that pursuant to Art. XIV(E), there having occurred a failure to resolve a grievance involving the interpretation, application and an alleged violation of a specific article and section of the agreement, they are entitled to go to arbitration.

The board responds that Urka's claim is non-arbitrable under Art. II where the board reserved to itself without limitation all powers, rights and authority conferred upon and vested in it by the laws of this state, including the right to 'hire all employees' and to determine 'the conditions for their continued employment or their dismissal or demotion,' the exercise of which powers, rights and authorities 'shall be limited only by the specific and express terms hereof' in conformance with the Constitution and laws of this state and the United States. The board would have a court decide that, by reason of Art. II, non-renewal of a probationary teacher's contract does not violate Art. XI(C) and that it did not agree to submit to arbitration a claim inconsistent with its rights under Art. II.

II

This collective bargaining agreement was entered into in accordance with the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA). ⁹ In construing the provisions and ramifications of the PERA, this Court has frequently looked to decisions of the Federal courts which construe and apply the National Labor Relations Act. ¹⁰

The policy favoring arbitration of disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements, as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in the Steelworkers' Trilogy, ¹¹ is appropriate for contracts entered into under the PERA.

In United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 1346, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960), the Court said that while the question whether a dispute is arbitrable is for a court, the judicial inquiry 'is confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is making A claim which on its face is governed by the contract. Whether the moving party is right or wrong is a question of contract interpretation for the arbitrator.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The union and Urka contend that 'on its face' her Claim is 'governed by the contract,' the collective bargaining agreement. The board contends that it is not asking the Court to interpret or apply any provision of the agreement because Urka's claim 'on its face' is not governed by the agreement but by the reserved rights of the board, including its rights under the Teachers' Tenure Act. Urka's Claim is not based on the Teachers' Tenure Act but on the collective bargaining agreement. Whether she has a valid Claim is 'governed by the contract.'

In United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582--583, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960), the collective bargaining agreement provided for arbitration of differences concerning the meaning and application of provisions of the contract except...