Law Enforcement Officers v. Yakima County

• Decision Date: 30 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 23811-3-III.,23811-3-III.
• Citation: 135 P.3d 558,133 Wn. App. 281
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: YAKIMA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GUILD, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. YAKIMA COUNTY, Appellant and Cross-Respondent.

Page 558

135 P.3d 558

133 Wn. App. 281

YAKIMA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GUILD, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. YAKIMA COUNTY, Appellant and Cross-Respondent.

No. 23811-3-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

May 30, 2006.

Martin Frederick Muench, Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Port Orchard, WA, for Appellant.

James Michael Cline, Aaron David Jeide, Cline & Associates, Seattle, WA, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

BROWN, J.

¶ 1 While Deputy Sheriff Jan Bartleson's disciplinary investigation was in progress, Yakima County Sheriff Ken Irwin discharged her on "fit for duty" grounds. Both Deputy Bartleson and the Yakima County Law Enforcement Guild grieved the discharge under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), alleging she was fit for duty and her medical discharge was a pretext for Sheriff Irwin's disciplinary concerns. After the County declined to arbitrate, the Guild sued to compel arbitration. The court summarily interpreted the CBA to require arbitration, but denied attorney fees for the Guild. The County and the Guild cross-appealed. We affirm, except for leaving the procedural attorney fee dispute to the arbitrator.

FACTS

¶ 2 In November 2002, Deputy Bartleson unsuccessfully requested extended medical leave due to surgery. Next, she filed a later dismissed sex-disability complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Because the EEOC complaint partly alleged Adult Attention Deficit Disorder, Sheriff Irwin required Ms. Bartleson to undergo a "fit for duty" psychological evaluation. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 212. The evaluation determined Deputy Bartleson was fit for duty.

¶ 3 However, two months later during an internal disciplinary investigation based on conduct complaints, Sheriff Irwin placed Ms. Bartleson on administrative leave and again required her to undergo a "fit for duty" evaluation. Initially, the psychologist was undecided about Ms. Bartleson's fitness, but after reviewing her internal file and ongoing investigation reports supplied by the sheriff, the psychologist opined she was not fit for duty. Sheriff Irwin requested an investigatory interview with Deputy Bartleson. She responded with a physician's letter stating she should not participate in any internal interviews due to stress and indicating she should be given three months of unpaid medical leave from April 14, 2003 through July 14, 2003. Sheriff Irwin granted the leave, but notified Deputy Bartleson her employment would be terminated when the leave expired. Effective July 15, 2003, Deputy Bartleson was discharged.

¶ 4 On July 24, 2003, Deputy Bartleson filed and later withdrew a termination appeal with the local civil service commission, alleging CBA violations. Ms. Bartleson is not a party to this appeal. Sheriff Irwin reviewed her July grievance and found "no violation," indicating she did not have the right to arbitrate his decision. On August 9, 2003, the Guild also filed a grievance partly seeking back pay and reinstatement for Deputy Bartleson. The Guild alleged a non-exclusive list of violations, including the violation of CBA sections 18.1, 18.3, and 19.3. On January 20, 2004, the County denied the Guild's arbitration request.

¶ 5 The Guild then sued in Benton County to compel Yakima County to arbitrate under the CBA, partly claiming the fitness discharge was a pretext for a disciplinary termination. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court interpreted the CBA's arbitration provisions to require arbitration of the Guild's grievance, but did not grant the Guild's attorney fee request. Both parties appealed.

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 The issue is whether the trial court erred in deciding the County was required to arbitrate the Guild's grievance as a matter of law.

¶ 7 Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998); CR 56(c). "The appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court when reviewing an order for summary judgment." Id. The facts and reasonable inferences from the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tydings, 125 Wash.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994). Our review is de novo. Id.

¶ 8 The arbitrability of labor disputes in Washington is controlled by federal law. Local Union 77, Int'l Bd. of Elec. Workers v. PUD 1, 40 Wash.App. 61, 63, 696 P.2d 1264 (1985). The key principles are found in the "Steelworkers' Trilogy": United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Company, 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); and United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corporation, 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960).

¶ 9 "[I]t is the court's duty to determine whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute." Council of County & City Employees v. Spokane County, 32 Wash.App. 422, 424-25, 647 P.2d 1058 (1982). We do not examine the controversy merits, but determine if the grievant has made a claim covered by the CBA. Id. We should order arbitration "unless it may be said with positive assurance the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute." Id. (emphasis in original). Doubts should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Id. All issues "upon which the parties disagree are presumed to be within the arbitration provisions unless negated expressly or by clear implication." Id.

¶ 10 Here, CBA sections 18.2 and 18.6 indicate disciplinary action, including discharge, is reviewed pursuant to Article 19. Under section 19.4:

An employee shall have the right to have a disciplinary action against him/her reviewed for just cause and severity of discipline pursuant to the provisions of this section as follows:

A. Disciplinary action resulting in oral and/or written reprimand shall be reviewed through the grievance procedure set forth in Article 20.

B. Disciplinary action resulting in suspension without pay, demotion, or discharge, shall be reviewed by the Yakima County Civil Service Commission.

CP at 158. Article 20 outlines the arbitration process.

¶ 11 These sections negate an arbitration right for disciplinary action resulting in discharge. Instead, disciplinary discharge is reviewed by the Yakima County Civil Service Commission. Even so, the Guild argues it has the right to arbitration under section 20.2 and 20.3.

¶ 12 Under section 20.3: "Any employee who believes that he/she has a grievance arising out of the terms of this Agreement may personally, or through a representative, apply for relief under the provisions of this Article." CP at 159. Under Section 20.2: "A grievance is defined as a dispute involving the interpretation, application or alleged violation of any provision of this Agreement." CP at 159.

¶ 13 The Guild's arguments partly focus on the County's interpretation and application of the "just cause" requirement for discharge under the CBA. As noted, just cause and discipline severity discharge issues are seemingly not subject to CBA arbitration. But, while section 19.4 negates the right to arbitrate discharge issues, sections 20.2 and 20.3 grant arbitration for disputes involving the interpretation and application of the CBA such as the parties' dispute over the interpretation and application of the just cause and discharge provisions. Therefore, an inconsistency exists between section 19.4 on one hand and sections 20.2 and 20.3 on the other hand.

¶ 14 Given the contractual ambiguity, we cannot say "with positive assurance the arbitration clause is not susceptible on an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute." See Council of County & City Employees, 32 Wash.App. at 425, 647 P.2d 1058 (emphasis in original). Considering the strong presumption favoring arbitrability, we resolve this conflict in favor of arbitration. See id.; see also AT & T Tech., Inc. v. Commc'n Inc., 475 U.S. 643, 656-57, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) (presumptively favoring arbitration when examining similar broad arbitration clause); Gen. Teamsters Local 231 v. Whatcom Cty., 38 Wash.App. 715, 717, 687 P.2d 1154 (1984).

¶ 15 We do not analyze the Guild's substantive complaints arising from section 20.2 and 20.3 because our focus is limited to deciding if the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute. Council of County & City Employees, 32 Wash.App. at 424-25, 647 P.2d 1058. Finally, we acknowledge the Guild's due process contentions concerning section 19.3. While section 19.3 provides for notice and the opportunity to respond, it does not expressly incorporate the protections from Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), into the CBA. Under our reasoning thus far, we need not reach the suggested constitutional issues.

¶ 16 The County contends the Guild's grievance is time-barred. Under section 20.5, an employee must file a grievance within 30 days of its occurrence or the employee "waived all rights and remedies under this Article relating to said grievance." CP at 159. Further, under section 20.4: "The parties agree that the time limitations provided are essential to the prompt and orderly resolution of any grievance and that each will abide by the time limitations, unless waived or extended by mutual agreement of the parties to the grievance." CP at 159. The Guild notes the time limits do not apply under section 20.6 if the CBA grievance affects more than one employee, but essentially concedes it did not allege more than one employee is affected.

¶ 17 However, giving...