Mass. Cmty. Coll. Council v. Mass. Bd. of Higher Education/Roxbury Cmty. Coll.
| Decision Date | 12 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | SJC–11250. |
| Citation | 991 N.E.2d 646,465 Mass. 791 |
| Parties | MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COUNCIL v. MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION/ROXBURY COMMUNITY COLLEGE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Will Evans for the plaintiff.
Carol Wolff Fallon, Boston, for the defendant.
Deirdre Heatwole & Joseph Ambash, Boston, for University of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
James B. Cox, Special Assistant Attorney General, & Alison Little Sabatello, Boston, for Bridgewater State University & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: IRELAND, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, GANTS, DUFFLY, & LENK, JJ.
The plaintiff, Massachusetts Community College Council (union), and the defendant, Massachusetts Board of Higher Education/Roxbury Community College (college), were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (agreement) containing a provision that “ [t]he granting or failure to grant tenure shall be arbitrable but any award is not binding.” After a professor, who was a member of the union, was denied tenure at the college, the union submitted his grievance to arbitration. An arbitrator concluded that the college violated the terms of the agreement, and ordered as a remedy that the professor be reinstated to his position, and that he be eligible for a new evaluation and tenure review process. A judge in the Superior Court affirmed the arbitrator's award. The judge reasoned that the issue before the arbitrator was the manner in which the professor was reviewed and considered for tenure, not the substantive tenure decision itself, and that the arbitrator's decision was binding on the college. The college appealed, and the Appeals Court concluded that under the “clear language” of the above-quoted provision of the agreement, the arbitrator's award was not binding on the college, and therefore the judge erred in confirming the arbitrator's award under G.L. c. 150C, § 10. Massachusetts Community College Council v. Massachusetts Bd. of Higher Educ./Roxbury Community College, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 554, 562–563, 965 N.E.2d 217 (2012)( Massachusetts Community College Council ). We also conclude that the Superior Court judgment must be reversed.
Background. On January 8, 2001, the college hired Virgilio Fernando Acevedo as an assistant professor, a tenure-track position, in the social science department. The terms of his employment were governed by the agreement, which covered full-time and part-time faculty and professional staff.1
In 2004, the college promoted Acevedo from assistant professor to associate professor. Acevedo's dean gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation for the fall 2005 semester that the college later rescinded and removed from his official personnel file in March, 2007. On October 6, 2006, as provided for in the agreement, the vice-president of academic affairs notified Acevedo of his eligibility for tenure consideration by the college's unit personnel practices committee (tenure review committee). The tenure review committee ultimately voted to recommend a denial of tenure for Acevedo.2 Again as provided in the agreement, the tenure review committeeforwarded its recommendation to higher administrative authorities, including the president of the college, who recommended to the college's board of trustees that Acevedo be denied tenure; the board of trustees accepted the recommendation in May of 2007. As provided in the agreement when tenure is denied, Acevedo received a terminal, one-year contract extending from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.
Acevedo grieved the decision to deny him tenure, alleging the college acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reaching its decision to deny tenure and issuing a one-year terminal contract. The grievance was not resolved in either of the first two steps of the agreement's grievance procedure, and the union thereafter filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on behalf of Acevedo. A mutually agreed upon arbitrator held hearings on three days in the spring of 2009.
The arbitrator considered two questions that the parties had agreed upon:
On July 30, 2009, the arbitrator issued her award. She concluded “the tenure process that led to [Acevedo's] receiving a terminal contract was seriously flawed,” and ruled that the college's actions leading up to the denial of tenure and the issuance of a terminal contract violated the bargained-for terms of the agreement. As a remedy, the arbitrator ordered the college immediatelyto reinstate Acevedo to his position as an associate professor with full seniority, benefits, and back pay, and, thereafter, to form a new tenure review committee composed of completely new members and to conduct a new tenure evaluation process based solely on the criteria set forth in the agreement. The arbitrator stated that she would retain jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the parties concerning the remedial section of the award.
On November 10, 2009, the union filed a complaint in the Superior Court to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to G.L. c. 150C, § 10. The college filed a motion to dismiss the action, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the arbitrator's award was a nonbinding award concerning the denial of tenure. A Superior Court judge denied the motion without prejudice. Thereafter, the college filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. After a hearing, a different Superior Court judge (motion judge) denied the college's motion and allowed the union's motion to confirm the arbitration award.
Discussion. 1. Arbitration of tenure review disputes under the agreement. To frame our discussion we summarize the relevant provisions of the agreement, which are contained in arts. X, XI, and XIII.
Article X, entitled “Grievance Procedure,” establishes a three-step grievance procedure for resolution of disputes under the agreement. Arbitration, which is step three, is the subject of art. 10.06. It provides, in art. 10.06(A)(1), that “[t]he decision or award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding for the [union], the employee and the [college] in accordance with applicable provisions of state law.” Article 10.06(C), concerning the arbitrator's authority, provides in part: “Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the arbitrator shall have the authority to make a final and binding award on any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement.” As indicated at the outset, art. 10.06(F) provides: “The granting or failure to grant tenure shall be arbitrable but any award is not binding.” It is followed by art. 10.06(G), providing that “in making a decision, the arbitrator shall apply the express provisions of this Agreement and shall not alter, amend, extend or revise any term or condition hereof.”
Article XI, entitled, “Appointment and Reappointment—Tenure,” focuses specifically on tenure in art. 11.03. Article 11.03(A) provides that tenure may be granted by the college on recommendation of the college's president, and art. 11.03(C) sets out procedures for tenure review. These include provision for the annual election of a tenure review committee by union members; the direction that tenure review committee members shall review “all relevant material within [the tenure candidate's] official personnel file and shall forward recommendations for either tenure or a one (1) year terminal appointment to the appropriate Dean[s]”; the dean's obligation to review the recommendations of the tenure review committee and the immediate supervisor and forward his or her own tenure recommendation to the president; the president's obligation to review the dean's recommendation and forward his or her recommendation to the college's board of trustees; and the direction that a recommendation for a one-year terminal contract, which is to follow from the president's recommendation of tenure denial, be accompanied by a statement of reasons.
The final relevant article is art. XIII, entitled “Evaluation.” It first describes in art. 13.01 the objectives of evaluations, which include providing “a basis upon which decisions shall be made concerning the reappointment, promotion ... tenure ... and termination, dismissal and discipline of a unit member.” Article 13.02 then sets out a series of specific criteria to govern faculty evaluations, which are to “be uniformly applied.”
The college argues that under the plain terms of the agreement, the arbitrator's award in this case was nonbinding because art. 10.06(F) renders an award concerning the “failure to grant tenure ... [to be] not binding.” The Appeals Court agreed. Massachusetts Community College Council, 81 Mass.App.Ct. at 561–563, 965 N.E.2d 217. We approach the issue from a slightly different perspective. Under the agreement, it is up to the arbitrator to interpret its terms.3 But whether a party has agreed to binding arbitration of a particular dispute is always a question for the court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Philip Morris Inc., 448 Mass. 836, 843–844, 864 N.E.2d 505 (2007);Local 1710, Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters AFL–CIO v. Chicopee, 430 Mass. 417, 420–422, 721 N.E.2d 378 (1999)( Local 1710 ), abrogated in part on other grounds by Massachusetts Highway Dep't v. Perini Corp., 444 Mass. 366, 373 n. 10, 376 n. 11, 828 N.E.2d 34 (2005). See also Falmouth Police Superior Officers Ass'n v. Falmouth, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 833, 838, 957 N.E.2d 1107 (2011) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bd. of Higher Educ. v. Commonwealth Emp't Relations Bd.
-
Greater Lowell Tech. High Sch. Sch. Comm. v. Greater Lowell Reg'l Teachers Ass'n
... ... Rule ... 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly ... known as ... See Massachusetts Community College Council ... v. Massachusetts Bd. of Higher ... ...