Title: WIBAUX EDUCATION ASSN v WIBAUX H
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13705
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 18, 1978

No. 13705 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF l l l O N T A N A 1977 WIBAUX EDUCATION ASSOCIAT.ION, affilitated with Montana Education Association, Plaintiff and Appellant, w ~ ~ n u x c o m W HIGH SCHOOL k t a%, , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal f r : , ~ r n : District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. Counsel cf Record: For Aspellant: Hilley and Loring, Great Falls, Montana Emilie Loring argued, Great Falls, Montana Fcr Respondents: R . W. Heineman argued, Wibaux, Montana Submitted: September 19, 1977 Decided: jA-N\Nfl318 Filed: &u -. . M r . Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court: Plaintiff Wibaux Education Association appeals from an order of the District Court, Wibaux County refusing to compel defendants Wibaux County High School and School District No. 6 , and i t s Trustees, t o submit a teaching dispute t o arbitration. The Wibaux High School Board of Trustees (School Board) employed Samuel R. Deckert for the school years of 1973-1974 and 1974-1975. In the spring 1975, Deckert was still a "nontenured" teacher under section 75-6103, R.C.M. 1947, which provides that tenure i s achieved when a teacher has been offered and has accepted a contract for the fourth consecutive year of employ- ment. Deckert was the President of the Wibaux Education Associa- tion and as a member was covered under a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the Association and the School Board. O n March 31, 1975 the School Board notified Deckert i n writing that it had passed a resolution to terminate h i s services a t the end of the 1974-1975 school year. Pursuant t o that portion the collective bargaining agreement relating t o nontenured teachers, Deckert requested a hearing upon the board's decision to terminate h i s contract. A hearing was held. O n April 14, 1975 the School Board reaffirmed its decision t o terminate Deckert . Deckert then followed grievance procedures under Article V of the agreement and requested the chairman of the Association's Professional Rights and Responsibility Committee to submit the dispute t o arbitration. O n M a y 19, 1975 the chairman made a written request for arbitration t o the School Board, but the School Board did not reply. On August 12, 1975 an additional demand was made t o a r b i t r a t e but the School Board again did not reply. Acting as the bargaining agent for Deckert the Association f i l e d s u i t i n District Court t o compel the School Board t o arbitrate. The court denied the request and t h i s appeal followed. This case comes t o us on a certified statement of the record and an agreed statement of facts. The sole issue i s whether Deckert's claim of improper nonrenewal is subject t o arbitration. The School Board claims Deckert was accorded a l l the procedural rights t o which he was entitled under the contract and by Montana statutes, and that an agreement t o a r b i t r a t e did not and could not include arbitration of the School Board's sole right t o not renew Deckert's teaching contract. The Association contends the issue must go t o an arbitrator and that an arbitrator has the ultimate .right t o overrule the School Board i n i t s nonrenewal decision. It argues the School Board, as the result of the give and take of collective bargaining, has agreed t o arbitrate t h i s issue. A t the time the contract was negotiated, the school f i s c a l year 1974-1975, the only statute relating t o rights of a non- tenured teacher was section 75-6105.1, R.C.M. 1947. It pro- vided that the school board must give notice t o a l l nontenured teachers by April 1st of each year, i f it does not intend to renew their contracts. A failure t o do so resulted i n automatic renewal of t h e i r contracts. It was not required that the school board have just cause for nonrenewal of their contracts. Nor does the statute, a s amended i n 1975, presently require just cause for nonrenewal of a contract of a nontenured teacher. In the 1974-1975 contract the parties included an Article which established mandatory evaluation procedures for nontenured teachers before they could be considered for nonrenewal. Article VI1,A. A second provision provided the hearing steps which must be followed i f requested by a nontenured teacher whose contract was not renewed. Article VII,B. If requested, the School Board was required to hold a hearing as t o the reasons why the nontenured teacher's contract was not renewed. The Article provides no remedies for failure of the school o f f i c i a l s t o comply with the hearing procedures. In any event, the Association agrees the school o f f i c i a l s followed the proper evaluation procedures and the School Board was requested t o and did conduct a proper hearing. The issue was joined when the School Board, a f t e r i t s hearing, reaffirmed i t s decision to terminate Deckert. H e f i l e d a request through the Association t o submit the issue of h i s nonrenewal t o arbitration. The Association labeled Deckert ' s 11 nonrenewal a grievance" and accordingly f i l e d a demand for F arbitration under the grievance procedure. The School Board refused t o arbitrate the issue of nonrenewal and the Association then f i l e d a complaint i n District Court seeking an order t o arbitrate. It was denied, and t h i s appeal followed. W e must determine whether the per se nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher's contract constitutes a "grievance" and thus i s subject t o the binding decision of an arbitrator. Per s e nonrenewal of either a tenured or nontenured teacher is not expressly covered i n the contract. Nonrenewal i s only mentioned under Article VII which is confined t o the evaluation procedures and hearing procedures for nontenured teachers. Under Article V, section A , a "grievance" i s defined thusly: "A grievance may be defined as a claim based upon an event or condition which affects the conditions or circumstances under which a teacher works, allegedly caused by misinterpre- tation o r inequitable application of established d i s t r i c t policies, statutes, or the terms of a negotia ted contract ." The Association offers no explanation of how t h i s specific definition applies t o the per s e nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher. The Association broadly asserts that the "grievance1' definition "would clearly cover a claim that a teacher's con- t r a c t was improperly non-renewed." W e can only conclude that since a l l "grievances" must be arbitrated under the contract, the Association believes that i f nonrenewal i s stated a s a 'I grievance1' it must therefore be arbitrated. Following' t h i s supposition to to i t s logical conclusion would mean that i n a l l cases involving nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher's contract, i f the teacher and Association demand it, the nonrenewal decision must be arbitrated. This would mean that i n a l l cases the arbitrator and not the school board would make the determination of whether or not t o renew the contract of a nontenured teacher. It is clear that arbitration under Article V I I would be available on a limited basis i f the "grievance" was that the school o f f i c i a l s o r School Board failed t o comply with either the evaluation or hearing procedures outlined i n subsections A and B. Exactly what relief an arbitrator could grant, w e are not prepared t o say, and it is not necessary t o our decision here for it is agreed the evaluation procedures and hearing procedures were properly followed. Here, i t appears the Association is seeking t o imply a "just-cause" provision into Article V I I of the agreement. A s stated before, t h i s clause covers only the evaluation and hearing procedures. Although the Association concedes the School Board has the statutory right t o h i r e and nonrenew the contracts of nontenured teachers, it contends the School Board has "bargained away" t h i s right by placing the ultimate decision with an arbitrator. However, where the agreement does not mention the subject of who makes the ultimate nonrenewal decision, we cannot so easily declare that the School Board has "bargained away" i t s authority t o the arbitrator. The hiring and nonrenewal of teachers i n Montana is recognized as a function that belongs to the school boards. School boards have contitutional status under Article X, Section 8, 1972 Montana Constitiltion, which provides: "The supervision and control of schools i n each school d i s t r i c t shall be vested i n a board of trustees t o be elected a s provided by law." A t the time the agreement here was negotiated the legislature had given school boards the exclusive right t o hire and terminate teachers. Chapter 59, T i t l e 75 covered the powers and duties of school boards. Section 75-5933, R.C.M. 1947, provided i n relevant part: "As prescribed elsewhere i n t h i s t i t l e , the trustees of each d i s t r i c t s h a l l have the power and it s h a l l be i t s duty t o perform the following duties o r acts: "(1) employ o r dismiss a teacher, principal or other assistant upon the recommendation of the d i s t r i c t superintendent, the county high school principal, or other principal as the board may deem necessary, accepting o r rejecting such recommendation as the trustees s h a l l i n their sole discretion deter- mine, i n accordance with the provisions of the school personnel chapter of t h i s t i t l e * * *.Ir (Emphasis added.) It is undisputed here that the appropriate high school personnel recommended nonrenewal of Deckert's contract. It i s clear also that t h i s power was given only t o the School Board. Chapter 61, T i t l e 75, Revised Codes of Montana, covered the rights, duties and obligations of teachers, superintendents and principals. Sections 75-6115 through 75-6128, R.C.M. 1947 (since repealed) were declared to be the "Professional Negotiations Act for Teachers". Section 75-6119 specifically provided that i n negotiations between teachers and the school board that: It* * * The matters of negotiation and bargaining for agreement s h a l l not include matters of curriculum, policy of operation, selection of teachers and other personnel, or physical plant of school or other f a c i l i t i e s * * *." (Emphasis added.) It i s plain from section 75-6119 that the legislature intended selection and concomitant right of nonrenewal t o be exclusively the province of the school boards. These laws manifest a clear intent by the legislature t o l i m i t the areas of negotiation. The Associatcon argues that despite such statutes, it is within the power of school boards t o confer more contractual rights t o teachers than they a r e entitled t o by the statutes. See f o r example: Danville Board of School Directors v. Fifield, (1974), 132 V t . 271, 315 A.2d 473; Teachers of Huntington v. Board of Education, District No. 3, (1969), 303 N.Y.S.2d 469; Board of Education, Yonkers City School District v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers, (1976), 40 N.Y. 2d 268, 353 N.E.2d 569; Board of Education v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local No. 3, (1975), 464 Pa.92, 346 A.2d 35; Milberry v. Board of Education of School D i s t . of Phi1.,(1976), 467 Pa. 79, 354 A.2d 559. Certainly there are areas within which the teachers may legitimately bargain for greater protection for i t s members than is provided by statute. But here the legislature has specifically excluded selection of teachers from the negotiation process. None of the cases cited by the Association hold that t h i s can be done where specifically prohibited by statute. The Association has not challenged the constitutionality of the statutes. It can be argued of course, that section 75-6119 prohibits only the selection of teachers from being a subject for nego- tiation, but does not prohibit the termination or nonrenewal of teachers from being a subject for negotiation. I f that were so, it would have been a simple matter for the legislature t o so declare. Furthermore, section 75-5933 s t a t e s that it i s within the "sole discretion" of the school board t o "employ o r dismiss a teacher". It i s clear that nonrenewal of nontenured teachers was not covered by the agreement or allowed by the law then in effect. (See sections 59-1601 through 59-1617, R.C.M 1947, for the law presently covering collective bargaining for teachers and public employees i n general. ) The judgment of the District Court i s affirmed. W e Concur: A I \ ~ h y e f Justice