Title: Springfield Teachers Assoc. v. Springfield School Directors

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Springfield Teachers Assoc. v. Springfield School Directors  (96-349); 
167 Vt. 180; 705 A.2d 541

[Filed 10-Oct-1997]

       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. 96-349

Springfield Teachers Association,            Supreme Court
Vermont-NEA & Joseph Roy
                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Windsor Superior Court

Springfield School Directors                 January Term, 1997

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

Donna Watts, Montpelier, for plaintiffs-appellees

Georgiana O. Miranda and Glenn C. Howland of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, P.C.,
Montpelier, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.), 
          Specially Assigned

       DOOLEY, J.   This is an appeal by defendant Springfield Board of
  School Directors from a superior court decision confirming an arbitration
  award and payment of back wages to plaintiff Joseph Roy.  On appeal, the
  board argues that (1) the superior court lacked jurisdiction because the
  arbitration award was not final; (2) the court improperly granted summary
  judgment; (3) the court improperly rejected its affirmative defenses; and
  (4) the court erred in dismissing the board's counterclaim.  We affirm in
  part, and vacate and remand in part.

       Roy was hired by defendant in 1990 for one year to teach vocationally
  oriented courses in the Occupational Development Program (ODP), a special
  education program at Springfield High School.  His full-time position was
  created by merging two half-time positions, one of which was a temporary
  vacancy created by a leave of absence.  Roy was not licensed to teach
  special education courses, and defendant's superintendent obtained a
  special waiver so Roy could teach for a year.

       After Roy received his certificate to teach special education courses,
  he accepted a

 

  contract to teach again for the 1991-92 school year.  During that
  year, the superintendent notified Roy that the position would not be
  available thereafter because the leave of absence of the half-time teacher
  was ending and the other half-time position was being eliminated. However,
  an ODP teacher, who was teaching academic courses, announced her
  resignation and created a vacancy.  Roy applied for the vacancy, but was
  found unqualified because he could not perform student assessments and had
  limited skills in math and other academic subjects.

       Roy grieved the decision not to hire him for the ODP vacancy, arguing
  that he had reduction-in-force (RIF) rights to be offered available
  alternative positions and that he was qualified for the ODP position. 
  Although he continued to pursue his grievance, he was thereafter offered a
  half-time position for the 1992-93 school year, which he accepted.  On
  August 12, 1993, he resigned this position and moved away, authorizing the
  Springfield Teachers Association and the Vermont-National Education
  Association, hereinafter referred to together as VT-NEA, to continue to
  pursue the grievance.  VT-NEA chose to continue the grievance because it
  believed the board had attempted to avoid RIF rights in this and other
  cases by using one-year employment contracts in violation of the collective
  bargaining agreement.

       The grievance was arbitrated on September 22, 1993.  The issues at
  arbitration were (1) whether the grievance was arbitrable, and if so, (2)
  whether the board had violated its master agreement with VT-NEA when it
  refused to offer Roy the full-time position.  On January 20, 1993, the
  arbitrator issued her award, finding that the grievance was arbitrable,
  reinstating Roy to a full-time position with full seniority, and ordering
  that Roy be made "whole for earnings lost."  The arbitrator made no
  earnings calculation, nor did she specifically retain jurisdiction until
  the parties did so.

       The parties agreed to delay Roy's reinstatement until the 1994-95
  school year.  They were unable, however, to agree on the amount of back
  wages to be paid him.  On June 13, 1995, Roy and VT-NEA filed an
  application to confirm the arbitration award in Windsor Superior Court,
  seeking enforcement of the back pay provision of the arbitrator's award. 
  The

 

  application acknowledged that Roy had been reinstated and stated that he
  had presented an accounting of his lost wages and benefits but the board
  had refused to pay the back wages owed. In its reply, the board raised
  numerous affirmative defenses and filed a counterclaim claiming that
  although Roy had accepted reinstatement and signed a contract to teach for
  the 1994-95 school year, he had breached his contract by refusing to teach. 
  On June 20, 1996, the Windsor Superior Court granted plaintiffs'
  application, entered judgment for Roy in the amount of $32,306, and
  dismissed defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim.  The board
  appeals these determinations.(FN1)

       The board's main argument is that the arbitration award cannot be
  enforced because it did not reduce the back pay award to a specific amount,
  and therefore, was not final.  In addressing this point, we start with our
  policy toward arbitration awards and a review of the applicable law.

       "Vermont has a strong tradition of upholding arbitration awards
  whenever possible."  R. E. Bean Constr. Co. v. Middlebury Assocs., 139 Vt.
  200, 204,