Piercy v. School Bd. of Washington County, Fla.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-796,90-796 |
| Citation | 576 So.2d 806,16 Fla. L. Weekly 660 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 66 Ed. Law Rep. 1372, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 660 Dr. Ivonne PIERCY, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. |
Thomas W. Brooks, of Myer and Brooks, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellant.
John D. Carlson, of Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant, Dr. Ivonne Piercy, formerly employed by appellee, the School Board of Washington County, Florida (board), as a non-tenured teacher, appeals the lower court's final judgment permanently restraining her from proceeding to arbitration on her grievance filed against appellee. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant was employed by appellee as a physical education teacher at Vernon High School under an annual contract of employment for the period from August 15, 1988 through June 5, 1989. After the school's principal, Louis F. Goodman, informed her that she would not be recommended for rehiring, and after she received a letter of recommendation from Goodman indicating that her nonrenewal was based on "staff reductions," Piercy filed a grievance.
Dr. Piercy alleged in the grievance that her contractual rights had been violated in that several articles of the collective bargaining agreement had been violated, including article XII thereof, pertaining to reduction in personnel. She specifically complained that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex, age, and experience, because her principal renewed a less-experienced, younger male in a comparable position. After Dr. Piercy's grievance was denied at each level of the grievance procedure, she demanded arbitration and an arbitration hearing was scheduled for November 7, 1989. Prior thereto the board filed its complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to prohibit the arbitration proceeding from continuing. Following a hearing on the board's complaint, the trial court concluded that no arbitrable issue existed and therefore granted the board's requests.
The trial court's role when considering applications to compel arbitration under Section 682.03, Florida Statutes (1987), is limited to determining (1) whether a valid written agreement exists containing an arbitration clause, (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists, and (3) whether the right to arbitrate was waived. Manalili v. Commercial Mowing & Grading, 442 So.2d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); William Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Mayfair House Ass'n, Inc., 395 So.2d 1171, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The trial court should not, however, delve into the merits of the grievance, because "[a]n order for arbitration shall not be refused on the ground that the claim in issue lacks merit or bona fides." § 682.03(5), Fla.Stat. (1987).
As to the first issue, the court correctly determined that the parties by mutual agreement continued to operate under the terms of the expired 1985-88 collective bargaining agreement while they were in the process of negotiating a new contract. That contract had contained a valid arbitration clause.
The second issue concerning the existence of an arbitrable issue was determined adversely to Dr. Piercy on the ground that her grievance was filed from the letter of recommendation, which the court determined was not an event giving rise to a grievance as defined in the collective bargaining contract. "Grievance" is there defined as "[a]ny claim by a teacher ... that there has been a misinterpretation or misapplication of any provision of this written agreement ... that affects instructional personnel's wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment." Appellant's grievance lists contract violations that allegedly occurred when she was denied renewal of employment. Although the grievance form does indicate March 23, 1989, the date of the letter of recommendation, as the date of her grievance, this is the date that Piercy would have first gained knowledge of the reason for her nonrenewal, i.e., "staff reductions." Piercy's grievance, then, is not directed to the letter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kidder, Peabody & Co. Inc. v. Marvin
...Koch v. Waller & Co., 439 So.2d 1041, 1043, (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct. of Appeals 1983); cf. Piercy v. School Board of Washington County; 576 So.2d 806, 807 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct. of Appeals [1991].11 Respondents' contentions that long arm jurisdiction under CPLR 301 and 302 is lacking are also unavail......
-
US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Romay
...the right to arbitrate was waived); Chicago Ins. Co. v. Tarr, 638 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (quoting Piercy v. School Bd. of Wash. County, 576 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). Arbitrable issues involved with appraisal, by their nature, are narrowly restricted to the resolution of specific......
-
Hubbard Const. Co. v. Jacobs Civil, Inc.
...DCA 2005), when it stated: And questions of timeliness are to be decided by an arbitrator, not a trial court. Piercy v. Sch. Bd. of Washington, 576 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). This is true even if the time requirement for arbitration is labeled a condition precedent. See Executive Life I......
-
Beverly Hills Development Corp. v. George Wimpey of Florida, Inc.
...Co., 280 So.2d 678 (Fla.1973); Hough v. JKP Development, Inc., 654 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Piercy v. School Board of Washington County, 576 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). 2 This is true even if the agreement to arbitrate is expressed as a condition precedent to a legal action. Mike B......