[Cite as Copley-Fairlawn City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Copley Teachers Assn. , 2020-Ohio-4801.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
COPLEY-FAIRLAWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellant

v. COPLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Appellee C.A. No. 29404

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2018-12-5097

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: October 7, 2020

TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge. {¶1} The Copley-Fairlawn City School District Board of Education app eals the judgment of the Summit County C ourt of Common P leas. We affirm

. I. {¶2} This case arose from the evaluation of certain teachers in the Copley-Fairlawn City School District. The teachers in question are members of the C opley Teachers Association (“CTA”), the exclusive representative for the teachers as set f orth in a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the C opley-Fairlawn City School Distr ict Board of Education (“the Board”) and the CTA. The CBA provides for teacher evaluations to be done in conformity with the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (“OTES”) framework as develo ped and approved by the Ohio State Board of Education. {¶3} At issue are a number of OTES teacher evaluations for the 2017- 2018 school year that included notations of the number of authorized absences by the teachers, including sick and2 personal leave. The CTA filed a grievance alleging that the Bo ard had violated, misinterpreted, or misapplied the CBA by including sick and personal leave data on the evaluations. The superintendent of the school dis trict denied the grievance, and the CTA contacted the American Arbitration Association to proceed with arbitration as provided for in the CBA. The Board subsequently filed a complaint f or declaratory judgment in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaration that the grievance is not subject to arbitration under the CBA. The CTA responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration and to dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The trial court conducted a hearing and entered judgme nt dismissing the complaint and ordering that arbitration go forward. The Board now appeals, r aising two assignments of error that have been reordered for t he purposes of our analysis.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE INCLUSION OF ATTENDANCE DATA IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS IS A MATTER CONTAINED WITHIN THE STANDARD-BASED TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM AGREED TO BY APPELLANT AND APPELLEE IN THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. {¶4} In its second assignment of error, the Board argues that the tr ial court erred in finding that the inclusion of a ttendance data in teacher evalua tions was a matter contained within the OTES agreed to by the par ties in the CBA . We disagree. {¶5} The question of whether an issue is referable under an arbitrat ion agreement is a matter of contract interpretation. Cook v. Community Health Partners , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010520, 2015–Ohio–1075, ¶ 5, citing Academy of Medicine of Ci ncinnati v. Aetna Health,
Inc. , 108 Ohio St.3d 488, 2006–Ohio–657, ¶ 11. Thus, the arbitrabi lity of a claim is a question of law that we review de novo. Murray v. David Moore Builders, Inc. , 177 Ohio App.3d 62, 2008–3 Ohio–2960, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.). Ohio has a “strong public policy f avoring arbitration, which is consistent with federal l aw supporting arbitration.” Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. , 130 Ohio St.3d 411, 2011–Ohio–5262, ¶ 18. “[W]hen deciding motions to c ompel arbitration, the proper focus is whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the i ssue, i.e., the scope of the arbitration clause, not the general policies of the arbitration statutes.” Id. at ¶ 20. “Ohio courts recognize a presumption in favor of arbitration when a claim falls within t he scope of an arb itration provision.”
Id. at ¶ 21. “[A]n order to arbitrate the particular grievance sho uld not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati at ¶ 14. {¶6} The question of whether an issue is referable under an arbitrat ion agreement is a matter of contract interpretation. Cook at ¶ 5, citing Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati at ¶ 11. “However, ‘[w]here the parties to a collective-bargaining agree ment have clearly and unmistakably vested the arbitrat or with the authority to decide the issue of arbitrability, the question of whether a m atter is arbitrable is to be decided by the arbitrator.’” Summit Constr. Co.
v. L.L.F.J.A.O. , 9th Dist. Summit No. 25621, 2012-Ohio-568, ¶ 13, quoting Pappas v. Richmond Towers, L.L.C. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94558, 2011–Ohio–5249, ¶ 13, quoting Belmont Cty. Sheriff v. Fraternal Order of Po lice, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. , 104 Ohio St.3d 568, 2004–Ohio– 7106, syllabus. “Any doubt as to arbitrability of an issue sho uld be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. {¶7} Article Three of the CBA provides: “If an issue of arbitrabilit y is raised, the arbitrator shall first determine whether the grievance is arbit rable before deciding the merits of the case.” On this basis alone the m atter would have been correctl y ordered to arbitration by the trial court. While the trial court’s analysis on the issue of arbitr ability was superfluous, it was also4 premature because the issue of arbitrability was in fact reserv ed for the arbitrator to determine in the first instance. {¶8} Therefore, the trial court’s findings that “the Board agreed to limit or otherwise govern the inclusion of attendanc e data in teacher evaluations” and “that all matters contained within the Board’s Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation System ar e grievable under the terms of the parties’ CBA” are vacated as premature. However, the trial court’s determinations to grant the petition to compel arbitration, to di smiss the declaratory judg ment action, and to order the case to arbitration were correct for t he reasons discussed above. {¶9} The Board’s second assign ment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE IS LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPELLANT AND APPELLEE PURSUANT TO WHICH APPELLANT AGREED TO LIMIT OR OTHERWISE GOVERN THE INCLUSION OF ATTENDANCE DATA IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS. {¶10} In its first assignment of error , the Board argues the trial co urt erred in finding that there is language contained in the CBA pursuant to which the Bo ard agreed to limit or otherwise govern the inclusion of attendance data in teacher evaluations. Our resolution of the second assignment of error renders this assignment of error moot, and we therefore decline to address it.
See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
III. {¶11} The Board’s second assignment o f error is overruled. We declin e to address the first assignment of error. The judgment of the Summit County C ourt of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.5

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to m ake a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

THOMAS A. TE ODOSIO FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: JOHN E. BRITTON and GISELLE S. SPENCER, Attorneys at Law, for A ppellant. J. MICHAEL FISCHER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. KATHLEEN K. MCKINLEY and RACHEL M. REIGHT, Attorneys at Law, fo r Appellee.