Shorey v. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R-1
| Decision Date | 30 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89CA0777,D,R-1,89CA0777 |
| Parties | 66 Ed. Law Rep. 1257 Denise SHOREY, and Jefferson County Education Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.efendant-Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Martha R. Houser, William J. Maikovich, Gregory J. Lawler and Michelle Smith Rabouin, Aurora, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Caplan and Earnest, Gerald A. Caplan, Richard E. Bump and Allen P. Taggart, Boulder, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge SMITH.
Plaintiffs, Denise Shorey and Jefferson County Education Association, appeal from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, Jefferson County School District No. R-1, and from the denial of plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and application to compel arbitration of a grievance. We reverse and remand.
The facts are undisputed. Jefferson County Education Association (JCEA), a voluntary labor organization representing employees of the district, was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the district which was in effect from January 1986 through December 1988. In October 1987, Shorey, who was employed by the district as a library media specialist in a junior high school, applied for a transfer to a vacant media specialist position at a high school within the district. On November 5, 1987, Shorey was notified that she had been accepted for the transfer.
On November 12, the JCEA approved the filing of a grievance on behalf of another of its members, Martha Krenek, who is not a party to this action, alleging that the district had violated the transfer provisions of the collective bargaining agreement and that Krenek, rather than Shorey, should have been selected for the media specialist position because of her seniority. The Krenek grievance was accepted and acted upon without a hearing and Krenek was given the position.
On November 18, Shorey was notified that her assignment had been in error and that Krenek had been assigned to the position. The JCEA thereafter authorized the filing of a grievance on behalf of Shorey, alleging that the district had violated the transfer provisions of the collective bargaining agreement because Shorey was the better qualified candidate.
The Shorey grievance was denied at Levels 1 and 2 of the dispute resolution process set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. In denying the grievance at Level 2, the school district superintendent found that both applicants were very well qualified for the position.
Shorey and the JCEA then sought to arbitrate the dispute in accordance with the Level 3 procedures outlined in the agreement. The district refused to arbitrate the dispute, asserting that all issues concerning the filling of the position had been resolved when it granted the relief requested in the Krenek grievance.
The trial court concluded that, although the district was under both a contractual and a statutory duty to arbitrate the grievance, the plaintiffs were estopped from asserting their right to arbitration and the district had properly refused to arbitrate the dispute.
Relying on § 13-22-204, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in refusing to compel arbitration of the Shorey grievance pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures of the collective bargaining agreement. We agree.
Section 13-22-204(1) provides that, on application of a party showing an agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration and the opposing party's refusal to arbitrate, the trial court shall order the parties to proceed to arbitration. Colorado courts may refuse to compel such proceedings only upon a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate or if the issue sought to be arbitrated is clearly beyond the scope of the arbitration provision. Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Drivers, Local No. 435, 39 Colo.App. 241, 566 P.2d 1078 (1977); see City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo.1983). Thus, an order for arbitration cannot be refused on the ground that the claim in issue lacks merit or is not bona fide or that grounds for the claim sought to be arbitrated have not been shown. Section 13-22-204(5), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A).
Here, the collective bargaining agreement defined a "grievance" as "a dispute, disagreement, or controversy concerning the interpretation or application of this agreement or related matter." The transfer provisions alleged to have been violated consisted of a list of five criteria to be applied in filling open positions by voluntary transfer.
The collective bargaining agreement contained the following arbitration provisions:
"If the aggrieved person and/or the Association is not satisfied with the disposition of a grievance at Level Two, ... the Association may, if it deems the grievance meritorious, request a hearing before an umpire.
....
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson County School Dist. No. R-1 v. Shorey
...a collective-bargaining agreement between the employee association and the employer school district. In Shorey v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181 (Colo.App.1990), the court of appeals held as follows: that the employee's grievance was not outside the scope of the provisio......
-
Eychner v. Van Vleet
...between the parties to the action, Zdeb v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, 674 F.Supp. 812 (D.Colo.1987); see Shorey v. Jefferson County School District No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181 (Colo.App.1990), and whether the issues being disputed are within the scope of that agreement. See Nelson v. Lange, 229 I......
-
EAGLE RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASS'N. v. Metropolitan Builders, Inc.
...beyond the scope of the arbitration provision." Eychner v. Van Vleet, supra, 870 P.2d at 489 (quoting Shorey v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181, 1183 (Colo.App.1990)); see § 13-22-204(1). To determine whether the parties agreed or intended to submit an issue to arbitratio......
-
Eagle Ridge Condominium Association v. Metropolitan Builders, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 03CA0805 (Colo. App. 3/11/2004)
...beyond the scope of the arbitration provision." Eychner v. Van Vleet, supra, 870 P.2d at 489 (quoting Shorey v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181, 1183 (Colo. App. 1990)); see § 13-22-204(1). To determine whether the parties agreed or intended to submit an issue to arbitrat......
-
When Is an “arbitration” Not an Arbitration?
...[24] Hoffsetz v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 757 P.2d 155 (Colo.App. 1988). [25] In Shorey v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181 (Colo.App. 1990), the court relied upon RUAA's predecessor statute to enforce a non-binding arbitration agreement, but neither party in that ......
-
A Three-year Survey of Colorado Appellate Decisions on Arbitration-part I
...1990). 42. Id., citing Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486, 489 (Colo.App. 1993), quoting Shorey v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181, 1183 (Colo.App. 1990) and citing § 13-22-204(1). 43. Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n, supra, note 5 at 918-19. 44. Id. at 919. See also id. at 920 (q......