School Bd. of City of Richmond v. Parham, No. 761561

• Docket Nº: No. 761561
• Citation: 218 Va. 950, 243 S.E.2d 468
• Case Date: April 21, 1978
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Page 468

243 S.E.2d 468 218 Va. 950 SCHOOL BOARD OF the CITY OF RICHMOND
v.
Margaret W. PARHAM et al., etc. Record No. 761561. Supreme Court of Virginia. April 21, 1978.

Page 469

[218 Va. 951] C. Tabor Cronk, Asst. City Atty., for plaintiff in error.

Michael W. Smith, William H. Hefty, Richmond (Peter E. Broadbent, Jr.; Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen., Walter H. Ryland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, on briefs), for defendants in error.

Before [218 Va. 950] I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and COMPTON, JJ.

[218 Va. 951] CARRICO, Justice.

This is an appeal from the final order of the trial court awarding Margaret W. Parham (hereinafter, Parham), a Richmond public schoolteacher, a writ of mandamus against the School Board of the City of Richmond (hereinafter, the School Board). The order compelled the School Board to submit to arbitration a grievance Parham had brought pursuant to the "Procedure for Adjusting Grievances," adopted by the State Board of Education (hereinafter, the State Board). The same order awarded the State Board, an intervenor in the proceeding, a declaratory judgment upholding the constitutionality of a provision of the Procedure which requires binding arbitration of certain disputes between local school boards and their non-supervisory employees. The sole question for decision is whether the provision for binding arbitration is constitutionally valid.

[218 Va. 952] Adopted in 1973 and subsequently amended, the Procedure prescribes the method for settling employee grievances. A grievance is defined as a difference or dispute concerning "the application of the provisions of the (local school board's) Policies, Rules and Regulations as they affect the work activity of (non-supervisory employees)." ¹ In a step-by-step process provided by the Procedure, an employee may submit a dispute successively to the immediate supervisor, the school principal, the division superintendent, and the local school board. Failing resolution of the dispute at these levels, the employee may appeal the matter to an arbitration panel which, after a de novo hearing, renders a decision in the case. An arbitration panel consists of one member chosen by the employee and one selected by the school board. If these two cannot resolve the dispute, they choose a third panelist.

According to the terms of the Procedure, an arbitration panel's jurisdiction is "confined exclusively to the application of the provision or provisions of the (local school board's) Policies, Rules and Regulations at issue between the employee and the (local school board);" the panel has "no authority to add to, detract from or amend any such provision or provisions." And, in a section entitled "Board's Prerogatives," it is stated that nothing in the Procedure is intended to "circumscribe or modify" the right of the local school board to exercise eight listed functions. ² The same section provides further, however, that should "a disagreement arise over whether a grievance concerns one or more of the (local school board's) prerogatives . . . the question of the arbitrability

Page 470

of such grievance shall itself be a matter within the jurisdiction of the Panel described in . . . this Procedure."

[218 Va. 953] Lastly, the Procedure contains this pertinent provision:

"The award of the Panel on the merits of any grievance adjudicated within its jurisdiction and authority as specified herein shall be final and binding on the aggrieved employee and the (local school board) and the (local school board) hereby delegates such authority to the Panel."

In the present case, Parham unsuccessfully processed her grievance through the several administrative levels prescribed by the Procedure and ultimately presented the dispute to the School Board, where she received an adverse decision. When she called for arbitration, the School Board refused to arbitrate, stating that it questioned the constitutionality of the Procedure "insofar as it compels arbitration binding on school boards in Virginia." Parham then filed her petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the School Board to submit the matter to arbitration.

At the heart of the present controversy are the provisions of Article VIII of the Virginia Constitution, which article relates to education. In pertinent part, the article reads:

" . . .

" § 2. Standards of quality; State and local support of public schools. Standards of quality for the several school divisions shall be determined and prescribed from time to time by the Board of Education, subject to revision only by the General Assembly.

" . . .

" § 4. Board of Education. The general supervision of the public school system shall be vested in a Board of Education . . . .

" § 5. Powers and duties of the Board of Education. The powers and duties of the Board of Education shall be as follows:

" . . .

"(e) Subject to the ultimate authority of the General Assembly, the Board shall have primary responsibility and authority for effectuating the educational policy set forth in [218 Va. 954] this Article, and it shall have such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by law.

" . . .

" § 7. School boards. The supervision of schools in each school division shall be vested in a school board . . . ."

The School Board recognizes that § 4 of Article VIII places "general supervision" of the public school system in the hands of the State Board. The School Board notes, however, that, under § 7 of Article VIII, the "supervision" of schools is vested in local school boards and that, implementing this constitutional mandate, the General Assembly has conferred upon such local boards extensive authority to execute their supervisory duties. ³ The School Board acknowledges that, within the general supervision/supervision format of §§ 4 and 7 of Article VIII, the General Assembly may "apportion various supervisory powers over the school system and schools, respectively, between the State Board and local school boards." And the School Board concedes that it must observe not only the standards of quality prescribed by the State Board, as revised by the General Assembly, but also the lawful regulations of the State Board.

The School Board argues, however, that "management of a school board's teaching

Page 471

staff and other employees is . . . an essential function of supervision" and that neither the General Assembly nor the State Board can divest local school boards of this function and place it "in an authority other than the local boards." Yet, the School Board asserts, the effect of the binding arbitration provision of the Procedure is to permit "an outside agency, in the form of an arbitration panel . . . to divest the local board of its essential function by the substitution of (the panel's) judgment for that of the board." As a result of the panel's action, the School Board maintains, a local school board's policies, rules, [218 Va. 955] and regulations relating to the work activity of employees could be altered or rendered meaningless. This, the School Board concludes, is constitutionally impermissible under § 7 of Article VIII.

On the other...