State ex rel. Williams v. Belpre City School Dist. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 85,85
• Citation: 41 Ohio App.3d 1,534 N.E.2d 96
• Parties: , 51 Ed. Law Rep. 1044 The STATE, ex rel. WILLIAMS, v. BELPRE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION. * CA 35.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 1

41 Ohio App.3d 1

534 N.E.2d 96, 51 Ed. Law Rep. 1044

The STATE, ex rel. WILLIAMS, v. BELPRE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION. ^*

No. 85 CA 35.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Washington County.

Sept. 25, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

1. R.C. 3319.11 is not a law pertaining to minimum educational requirements. (R.C. 4117.10[A], applied.)

2. A writ of mandamus may not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. For a remedy to be adequate, the remedy should be complete in its nature, beneficial and speedy.

3. The mere fact that the relator in a mandamus action failed to timely pursue her right to arbitration does not render the remedy inadequate although the relator is not now entitled to arbitration of her grievance.

4. When language is ambiguous and unclear, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration.

5. A question is suitable for arbitration even though it may require the interpretation of statutory law as being incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement.

6. The presence of a nonexclusive remedy clause in a collective bargaining agreement does not render the remedy of arbitration any less adequate or constitute a "special circumstance" sufficient to waive the requirement that arbitration remedies be exhausted prior to seeking relief through mandamus.

Cloppert, Portman, Sauter, Latanick & Foley, Columbus, and Mark A. Foley, Wellston, for relator.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., and Matthew J. DeTemple, Columbus, for respondent.

STEPHENSON, Judge.

This is an original action wherein Linda Williams, relator herein, prays for a writ of mandamus ordering Belpre City School District Board of Education, respondent herein, to issue a continuing contract to her.

On December 12, 1985, relator filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus, and respondent subsequently filed an answer and an amended answer to relator's complaint. On September 8, 1986, the parties filed a stipulation of facts which provides, in pertinent part, as follows.

Respondent is the corporate entity charged with the management and control of schools in its district as well as the employment of teachers in the school district. Relator is a mathematics teacher employed in the school district. On July 23, 1980, relator was issued an eight-year professional teaching certificate by the State Board of Education. On July 20, 1981, relator was initially employed by respondent, being given a one-year limited contract for the 1981-1982 school year. At the time of her employment with respondent, relator had not attained continuing contract status in any other Ohio school district.

On April 19, 1982, respondent granted relator a two-year limited contract to teach for the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 school years. Relator taught during both the 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 school years, but took a maternity leave of absence and did not teach during the 1983-1984 school year. On March 28, 1984, relator sent a letter to school district superintendent Jerry Russell stating her intention to return to work for the 1984-1985 school year and requesting a half-day teaching position.

On April 16, 1984, at a duly called meeting of respondent, relator was granted a three-year limited contract to teach in the school district from August 1984 until August 1987. A written contract reflecting respondent's actions was prepared and signed by the applicable school district officials, but the contract was not delivered to or signed by relator. Furthermore, relator had no actual knowledge of the April 16, 1984 action by respondent and was never issued a probationary limited contract accompanied by written notice containing recommendations regarding professional improvement.

On August 6, 1984, respondent held a meeting and adopted a resolution which provided as follows:

"BE IT RESOLVED, that the contracts of the following teachers be approved for half-time assignments:

"Carol Peal--Elementary Music

Half-time (50%)

Belpre Elementary

"Linda Williams--Middle School Math

Half-time (56.25%)"

A one-year limited contract for the 1984-1985 school year reflecting the August 6, 1984 resolution adopted by respondent was prepared and was signed by both parties. Relator then taught half-time (56.25 percent) in the school district and was paid $12,003.19 for the 1984-1985 school year. No action regarding the employment of relator was taken at the April 1985 meeting of respondent, and relator asked respondent why it had taken no action. The Belpre Education Association, the exclusive bargaining agent for teachers in the school district, including relator, demanded that respondent issue relator a continuing contract.

On July 29, 1985, respondent held a meeting at which it adopted a resolution granting relator a three-year limited contract for the 1985-1986, 1986-1987, and 1987-1988 school years. Respondent prepared and signed a contract reflecting the July 29, 1985 resolution, but relator did not sign such contract.

During the applicable period of time, from August 1, 1982 until July 31, 1985, a collective bargaining agreement between respondent and the Belpre Education Association was in effect which provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

"ARTICLE VII INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS

"8.1 All teachers employed by the Board shall receive written contracts. The contracts shall include:

"A. Name of the teacher

"B. Name of the school district

"C. Type of contract

"D. Duration of contract

"E. Annual salary and basis for determining the amount. Such information shall be given only for the initial year of a multi-year contract and said information will be provided in the annual salary notification thereafter during the term of the contract.

"F. Provision for the appropriate signatures and date.

" * * *

"8.3 The issuance of renewed limited contracts, new continuing contracts, and supplemental contracts shall be completed by June 1. Signed contracts shall be returned by teachers no later than June 15. Salary and supplemental salary notices shall be issued [to] each teacher not later than twenty (20) working days following ratification of the contract by the Board.

" * * *

"8.5 Teacher contracts will be issued in the following sequence: one year, two years, three years, and five years. On the basis of evaluation, the contract sequence may be interrupted at each level by a one-year probationary contract. If at any time it is necessary to issue a probationary contract, a teacher will be notified in writing of the change and appropriate reasons by not later than April 30 of the year the teacher's contract is up for renewal. Failure of the Board to give a teacher written notice of nonrenewal or of the issuance of a probationary contract shall result in the teacher being issued the length contract in accordance with this article.

" * * *

"29.1 ARTICLE XXIX PROVISIONS CONTRARY TO LAW

"In the event there is a conflict between a provision of this agreement and any applicable state law, rule or regulation of any governing agency, the parties shall meet for the purpose of bringing the affected provision into compliance with the law. Discussion in this regard will be limited to the affected provision in this contract.

" * * *

"ARTICLE XXXI TEACHING EXPERIENCE

"The Belpre Schools will recognize 'years of teaching experience' as follows:

" * * *

"31.3 One year of teaching experience will be recognized for each two years of one-half ( 1/2) day assignment of at least one hundred twenty (120) days under a teacher's contract."

The collective bargaining agreement further provided a four-level grievance procedure with the fourth level being arbitration of a dispute if the aggrieved party requested arbitration within ten days after the time limit for respondent's response at level three of the grievance procedure. Respondent and the Belpre Education Association entered into a new collective bargaining agreement effective from August 1, 1985 until July 31, 1987, which contained substantially similar provisions to the prior collective bargaining agreement.

On September 9, 1985, relator filed a grievance in which she claimed that she was entitled to a continuing contract. The grievance was submitted by relator through the first three levels of the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreements, but relator did not submit the grievance to the fourth and final level of the contractual grievance procedure, binding arbitration. Relator continued to teach as a mathematics teacher, full-time in the school district, from the 1985-1986 school year until the present time.

R.C. 2731.01 provides as follows:

"Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station."

In order for a relator to establish entitlement to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, he must demonstrate: (1) that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and (3) that the relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. O.M. Scott & Sons Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 341, 28 OBR 406, 503 N.E.2d 1032; State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225; State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O.3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus.

Respondent initially argues that relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the issuance of a continuing contract as of June 1, 1985 because relator does not have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for. R.C. 3319.11 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be...