Reidenbach v. Board of School Trustees of West Noble School Corp.

Decision Date22 January 1980
Docket NumberNo. 3-177A7,3-177A7
PartiesPhilip REIDENBACH, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF the WEST NOBLE SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellee(Defendant Below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Bingham, Summers, Welsh & Spilman, Indianapolis, R. Stan Emerick, Emerick & Diggins, Kendallville, for appellant.

James R. Heuer, Gates & Gates, Columbia City, Robert E. Reed, Reed & Hearn, Syracuse, for appellee.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from an entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Board of School Trustees of the West Noble School Corporation (School Board) in an action filed by plaintiff-appellant Philip Reidenbach alleging the wrongful refusal of the School Board to renew his contract as a public school teacher. The trial court found that Reidenbach failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (Agreement) in effect at the time which governed the terms and conditions of his employment with the School Board. Due to his failure to exhaust these remedies, the trial court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the instant suit.

During the 1974-75 school year Reidenbach was employed as a non-tenure teacher in the West Noble School Corporation. On January 20, 1975, he was informed by Superintendent Longenbaugh that he was suspended from his teaching duties effectively as of that date. On February 20, 1975, the School Board terminated Reidenbach's employment and provided him with a written list of the reasons for its action. After receiving this notice of termination Reidenbach initiated a grievance proceeding pursuant to the Agreement in which he alleged, Inter alia, that the reasons for terminating his employment were arbitrary and capricious and that therefore the School Board had violated the Agreement. On April 22, 1975, the parties agreed to submit the matter to binding arbitration. The arbitration hearing was set for June 6, 1975. On April 28, 1975, the School Board notified Reidenbach that regardless of the outcome of the pending arbitration proceeding, his contract would not be renewed for the 1975-76 school year. Upon receipt of this notice Reidenbach did not request a written statement from the School Board showing the reasons for the non-renewal.

In his decision on August 16, 1975 the arbitrator found that the School Board's reasons for terminating Reidenbach's employment in February were arbitrary and capricious. He awarded Reidenbach the balance of his salary for the 1974-75 school year. On August 17, 1975, Reidenbach presented himself to the Superintendent for employment. However, he was not thereafter employed by the School Board. On December 12, 1975 this suit ensued.

Reidenbach maintains the trial court erred in holding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. His principal contention is that no such remedies were available to him under the Agreement. Alternatively, he argues that if any remedies were available they were not exclusive and that in any event it would have been futile to exercise them.

The trial court determined that when Reidenbach received notice of the non-renewal from the School Board, he failed to request the reasons for its actions as provided for in Article X(A) of the Agreement. Article X reads as follows:

"Non-renewal of Non-tenure Teacher

If the employment of a non-tenure teacher is discontinued by the Board, the teacher may not use the grievance procedure of this Agreement (Article XII) unless the following procedures are violated:

A. The teacher may request and will receive a written reason(s) for the non-renewal of contract.

B. The written reason(s) shall not be arbitrary or capricious.

C. The teacher shall be permitted to review his personnel file and duplicate any information contained therein. (This right shall not extend to documents or recommendations obtained by the School Corporation in the course of originally employing the teacher.)

D. The teacher may request and will receive an opportunity to appear before the Board in executive session and may:

1. state his/her contention and answer charges, if any; and

2. be represented by counsel or otherwise have individuals speak on his/her behalf."

The import of this article is two-fold: first, it delineates the instances in which the grievance procedures of Article XII may be invoked. Thus unless the procedures in sections (A), (B), (C) or (D) of Article X are violated, the grievance procedures in Article XII are unavailable to the claimant. Secondly, Article X sets forth the procedures to be followed when a non-tenure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Indiana Environmental Management Bd.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 4, 1984
    ...v. Huntington County Department of Public Welfare, (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 627, 629; Reidenbach v. Board of School Trustees of the West Noble School Corp., (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1372, 1374; South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Education Association--South Bend, (1979) 180......
  • Young v. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 9, 2003
    ...capable of rectifying the claimed error have been pursued to finality. Id. at 1351 (citing Reidenbach v. Bd. of Sch. Trustees of W. Noble Sch. Corp., 398 N.E.2d 1372 (Ind.Ct.App.1980)). However, we also noted that we do not apply this rule mechanistically. Rather, in determining whether or ......
  • Indiana State Dept. of Welfare, Medicaid Division v. Stagner
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 30, 1980
    ...until administrative remedies capable of rectifying the claimed error have been pursued to finality. Reidenbach v. Board of School Trustees, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1372. We do not, however, apply this rule mechanistically. Rather, in determining whether or not Stagner should be allowed......
  • Jones v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 2-679A175
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 16, 1980
    ...directly appeal the referee's decision to this court. See Ind.Code 22-4-17-3 and 22-4-17-11; Reidenbach v. Board of School Trustees of West Noble School Corp., (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1372. Claimant Conner did perfect an appeal to the Board, however, he failed to timely perfect his appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT