Title: Triway Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Geib

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Triway Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Geib, 88 Ohio St.3d 374, 2000-Ohio-346.] 
 
 
 
 
TRIWAY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE, v. GEIB ET 
AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as Triway Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Geib (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 374.] 
Schools — Teachers — Arbitration — Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and 
trial court’s judgment reinstated on authority of Findlay City School Dist. 
Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn. 
(No. 99-1025 — Submitted February 23, 2000 — Decided April 12, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 97CA0077. 
__________________ 
 
Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., Scott C. Peters and 
Krista M. Kay, for appellee. 
 
Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy & Macala Co., L.P.A., Ronald G. Macala 
and Anthony M. DioGuardi II, for appellants. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the 
trial court is reinstated on the authority of Findlay City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. 
Findlay Edn. Assn. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 129, 551 N.E.2d 186. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
 
 
2
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  
That judgment turned on the difference between the requirements of the collective 
bargaining agreement and the statutory requirements governing the non-renewal of 
this teacher.  In Geib v. Triway Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 
447, 705 N.E.2d 326, this court considered only the issue of whether the Statement 
of Circumstances provided to this teacher met the statutory requirements of R.C. 
3319.11(G).  Here, the court of appeals concluded that the arbitrator, in evaluating 
the school district’s adherence to the collective bargaining agreement in 
substantiating its decision not to continue this teacher’s employment, erred by 
using the statutory criteria dictated in the prior case rather than the pertinent 
criteria set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. 
 
The collective bargaining agreement requires that the school district 
substantiate the basis for non-renewal with written evaluations of the employee 
and/or other written material, and does not even require that the employee be 
provided with the substantiation.  The statute, on the other hand, requires that the 
board of education provide a non-renewed teacher with a “written statement 
describing the circumstances that led to the board’s intention not to reemploy the 
teacher” if the teacher so requests.  R.C. 3319.11(G)(2).  This statement must 
demonstrate a “clear and substantive” basis for its decision not to reemploy the 
 
 
3
teacher.  See Naylor v. Cardinal Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio 
St.3d 162, 630 N.E.2d 725, paragraph three of the syllabus. 
 
Despite these distinctions between the collective bargaining agreement and 
the statute, the arbitrator patterned his finding on the finding of Judge Wiest in the 
prior case, saying, “[T]he Statement of Circumstances provided to the Grievant 
failed to ‘clearly’ ‘substantiate’ the reasons for her non-renewal.  This is a fatal 
defect  in the position of the District.” 
 
The arbitrator confined his consideration to the statutory standards.  His 
decision, therefore, cannot reasonably be said to have drawn its essence from the 
collective bargaining agreement.  Thus, the court of appeals correctly reversed and 
remanded the cause for a new hearing, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his 
authority by failing to adhere to the plain language of the collective bargaining 
agreement.  I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.