Case Title: Milton Board of School Directors v. Milton Staff Ass'n.

Citation: 163 Vt 240, 656 A.2d 993

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
MILTON_SCHOOL_DIRECTORS_V_MILTON_STAFF_ASSN.94-162; 163 Vt 240; 656 A.2d 993

[Filed 27-Jan-1995]

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                                 No. 94-162


Milton Board of School Directors                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                            Chittenden Superior Court

Milton Staff Association,                         November Term, 1994
Local 130 VEA/NEA


Merideth Wright, J.

Dennis W. Wells and Christopher D. Roy of Downs Rachlin & Martin, Burlington,
 for plaintiff- appellant 

Donna Watts, Vermont-NEA, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   The Milton Board of School Directors (Board) appeals from
a decision of the Chittenden Superior Court confirming an arbitrator's award
in favor of the members of the Milton Staff Association (Union).  We reverse.

     The Board and the Union entered a collective bargaining agreement
effective from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1992.  At the completion of that
term, the parties were unable to agree to a successor contract.  The Board
continued to pay the Union's members at 1991-92 rates. The Union objected on
grounds that its members were entitled to automatic pay increases each year,
even after the agreement expired and filed a grievance in accordance with the
procedure set forth in Article VI of the agreement. 

     The issue was submitted to an arbitrator for binding resolution.  The
Board challenged the arbitrator's authority to hear the question of
post-expiration compensation.  The Board argued that the section within the
agreement establishing the procedure for negotiating a successor agreement
did not mention arbitration.  Only the section on grievance procedures

 

provided for the Union to elect arbitration if not satisfied with disposition
of a grievance at a certain stage. This section directed that "[t]he
arbitrator shall have no power to alter the terms of this agreement."  The
agreement further stated that its written terms "incorporate[d] the entire
understanding of the parties of all matters which were the subject of
negotiations." 

     After a hearing, the arbitrator issued an award and decision, ruling
that the implied terms of the agreement included an automatic level increase
in wage rates for the Union's members for the school year following
expiration of the agreement.  On the question of his post-expiration
jurisdiction, the arbitrator concluded that the Union had not secured the
benefits of an evergreen clause, which would have continued the terms of the
existing contract until a successor agreement was negotiated.  He concluded,
however, that the Union had secured more limited protection by
contractualizing its statutory rights under 21 V.S.A.  1726(a)(5)(FN1) by
stating in the agreement that "[n]egotiations shall take place in good faith
in order to reach agreement upon the subsequent Agreement."  Because this
agreement provision mirrored the language of the statute, the arbitrator
concluded that the Union had bargained for the option of pursuing relief via
arbitration.(FN2)

     On the merits, the arbitrator concluded that although not explicitly set
forth in the agreement, the annual advancement principle "is implicit in the
14-level salary schedule" and "should have been honored by the Board on and
after July 1, 1992."  The arbitrator added that abandonment of that principle
violated the Board's obligation to bargain in good faith under  1726(a)(5)
and Article 5.3 of the agreement. 

 

     The Board moved in superior court to vacate the award, but the court
confirmed the award, concluding that the practice of allowing an annual
advance to the next salary level was the status quo under the agreement.  The
court also concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his power in applying
the status quo doctrine.  The present appeal followed. 

     An arbitrator's authority is no broader than the power granted by
contract.  R.E. Bean Constr. Co. v. Middlebury Assocs., 139 Vt. 200, 209,