understand that we have read your briefs ok and we have a general idea what the case is about and there will be a need for that type of thing let's  niles the court must look to the four corners of the document to determine whether or not he's a claim has been stated in this case the association claims the district violated specific contract with which article three point one of the contract says that a grievance is a violation of the terms of the agreement and so you're limited to looking at the language in the four corners of the document only you cannot look at extreme iest occupants or ever agreements between the parties is the four corners of the document and in this case there is no language in article seven that requires the school district to document reasons prior to none really want to give reasons prior to not only nor on or two to use in the documents in the personnel file before the board of education makes a decision which the statute best in its exclusive authority whether or not it wants to continue under point a relationship with this teacher or not teachers have no expectation of continued employment during their first four years of employment and during the first three years will point the stache allows the board to they claim that district violated article thirteen evaluation procedures when you read article thirteen it simply requires that two members of the school board two members of the association meet one time  interestingly when you look at the niles decision and you look at the contract language reference to niles niall's actually have evaluation procedures in a contract this contract is completely void of any evacuation procedures at all  the analysis of the court this court's decision in niles is consistent with our analysis of the facts in this case and there is no science article claim identified or stated by the association on the personnel file article seven or the evaluation procedures article thirteen right to not reveal probationary teacher under article twenty four level of the school and have any reason at all and i'm sorry they have to state any reason are you not your lawyer during the first three years of employment no reasons have to be  just cause standard does not apply to worst decision to not renew it that was the argument that was raised in the west central it was the argument that the association raised in wa court and that  function a statutory function and right of the school board to decide and appoint decision a decision is whether or not we want to continue our employment relationship with this teacher in a manner that would then put the teacher on tenure status contractual continued service and that's the language they use in the statute and i know that the associations i commit is that twenty four eleven is weight of any limitations you know one of the labor act the parties can enter into agreements to add to the statu continued employment from year to year until they finish their fourth first time year of service in the school district once they finish their full time for all their years of full time service  automatically granted tenure operational was the only way that the porridge can prevent the teacher from having tenure status is if the school district gives a teacher written notice at least forty five days before the in the school term to notify the teacher that their employment will not be continued for the next year and that is not at this one area action that's simply a decision on the board as to what teacher do we want to continue in our employment and it may very well be a mediocre teacher it doesn't have to be a bad teacher the school boy has the discretion to decide of this maybe an average teacher but we want to look for a teacher that has excellent it's not  adverse employment you need to share your time yes yes we will your honor because that is the contract language that the court should look to to determine whether this claim is it's procedurally it is contractually arpa trouble article three point one of the collective bargaining agreement defines a grievance as quote any claim that there has been a fire lation of the terms of this agreement and article three point three provides that if the association is not satisfied with the disposition of the grievance  four the association may submit the grievance to final binding arbitration that's the key language here this contract unlike the contract in niles does not have any language excluding any type of any of the contract terms or any subject matter of the contract from arbitration it's an extremely broad agreement in this particular contract now in the nihilists case the the contract specifically stated that grievances challenging the non renewal of anon for bay sherry teacher could only be processed through the grievance process as far as the school board level in other words not to arbitration t contract in niles specifically precluded arbitration of that particular type of grievance and the majority in the isles case as your honour's well know interpreted the grievances in that particular case as challenging the decision to not renew so therefore those particular grievances were excluded from arbitration by the expressed terms of the grievance procedure in that contract which said the non renewal grievances could only go up to the school board level that is the key distinction between this case and niall's i would submit to the extent that the court in niles then looked also at other provisions such as the evaluation of personnel file provisions there are differences here which i can address the court would like me to but the association submit that the court needs to look at and should look at here is the grievance arbitration provision itself because that's what term is subject to the same provisions as tenured teachers not by any means but the contract does include this teacher in the grievance procedure which is different from the procedural protections that a tenured teacher would  receive this case of course invalid spoke with the just grievance and the grievances relating to the evaluation process and the the personnel file with regard to just cause it's just the school call that obviously does not require just cause for the non renewal of a non tenure teacher but it also does not prohibit the parties from agreeing to a just cause review by an arbitrator as a supplement to any statutory rights provided that the arbitrator does not award reinstatement at the school board has the statutory power to dismiss we acknowledge that but if the district chooses to agree to procedural protections or other protections such as just cause and its collective bargaining agreement and then the school board does not abide by those by its agreement then that violation may be subject to compensatory damages or another appropriate remedy from an arbitrator other than reinstatement and i think a very illuminating case by analogy to that point is the granite city case out of the fourth district which came out after rockford and distinguish rockford the issue in granite city was whether it was possible to arbitrate a one day disciplinary suspension of a teacher which the grievance alleged to be without just cause and the co recognized that the school code give school districts the power to suspend but it also ruled that arbitrating the suspension for just cause would not conflict with the school code and the court distinguish rockford because with the suspension unlike with a tenured teacher dismissal there is no comprehensive statutory scheme for challenging the suspension it's certainly up to a school district as to whether they want to agree to a just cause provision but if they do agree then the suspension ma arbitrated and we would submit that the same is true for the non renewal of a non tenured teacher subject to the limitation that reinstatement cannot granted  now in the nile's case the majority took the view they had the portions of the grievance relating to evaluation and to the personnel file were really nothing more than attacks on the non renewal itself i'd like to to address that issue in this case because there are independent issues relating to the procedural violations alleged in that's obviously there are connections to the non renewal but the detail requirements have a value and significance of their own independent of its mis munster stated the the association contends that the evaluation plan is incorporated implicitly into the contract because the contract agrees that the parties will submit will meet and submit any changes to the plan therefore according to the associations view the plan must be abided by unless it's been changed through that agreed upon means in the contract and it's up to the arbitrator to decide whether the associations reading of that contract provision is a good reading or not but assuming for the moment that there has been a valuation it violation of the valuation play on that the issue here for the teacher is there is an independent value to getting feedback getting a rating receiving a plan for improvement and recommendations from an experienced principal because it helps that person improve as a teacher and if the teacher has a contractual right to that and is denied that right then the teacher is deprived of the opportunity to improve and correct any deficiencies it in't and that interferes potentially with the teacher's employability and earning power  with regard to the personnel file there is basing a non renewal on undisclosed material is a harm it's separate from the non renewal itself it's professionally harmful to a teacher not to know why the non renewal decision was made is it based on a foreman's problem is it based on some kind of perceived misconduct the teacher needs to know that so that the teacher can try to correct that problem in the future and it's harmful to the professional reputation to be dismissed without any explanation it makes it impossible for the teacher to explain the non renewal tricks to prospective employers or to respond to any concerns that there may be so those are independent harms for which an arbitrator could  they occurred to the arbitrator could reasonably award monetary damages as well as other types of relief other than reinstatement and with that i don't want to take any more time thank you deal my education labor relations board always things position as far as you know and he's kind of his in fact in terms of that you can parse that you can argue for procedural protections as far as i know yes but consequences for that here at least arguably there's consequences that flow because you have this person the evaluation provision under the our valuation provision there was a remediation that was applied and the remediation plan said give teachers contract there is an agreement that teachers will not be dismissed without a chance to under the contract well i guess they didn't accidentally fall into this position i think that's something for the arbitrator to really just i mean that the contract has at least you know broad enough there's enough of a file there's enough of a tie there because the personnel file for it just says you can't look at matters outside the personnel file to dismiss to discipline whether to split whether dismissal is it is discipline or not is a matter for the arbitrator it's not a matter for the board based on midwest central which had to just stand the court in midwest central very clearly held that even if there is a just standard it doesn't really matter what the parties intended by that clause it is not applicable agreed upon language that allow teachers to grieve procedural matter teachers due to grieve procedural violations and then preclude them from arbitrary in their non renewal in this case the contract is very clear that a grievance can only be a violation of the terms of this agreement on whether or not there's a provision that bars arbitration is your relative it is irrelevant and the association has failed if you look at the specific language under article refers to the evacuation plan is required to give remediation notice of deficiencies that's all part of a document that's not incorporated in reference are included in the terms of the of the contract  in fact the chairman of the labor board and one other member in their dissenting opinion concluded that the labor board was compelled to follow niall's and that even if the labor board were to look