Opinion ID: 2206423
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Arbitrate.

Text: The second case deals with the Board's refusal to arbitrate concerning Christensen's right to tenure. Christensen insists this alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement is beyond the scope of agency action. We again decide in favor of the Board. Chapter 262 specifically recognizes the Board's right to carry out collective bargaining and related responsibilities. § 262.9(14). Under the collective bargaining contract, the Board must determine who is entitled to tenure. The determination of that status becomes agency action subject to judicial review as provided in section 17A.19, The Code. In passing on these matters we have not ignored the troublesome questions raised by the appeal. We understand the objections made to the wide power given the Board and other agencies under the IAPA. The objections, however, go only to the wisdom of the act. We cannot overlook the clear signals that the legislature intended the act to be far reaching and liberally construed. As examples, we point to the virtually all inclusive definition of agency action in section 17A.2(9); to section 17A.23, which gives the IAPA precedence over any other statute which diminishes any right conferred on requirement imposed by [chapter 17A]; and to that same section, which directs that the chapter be broadly construed to effectuate its purposes and provides it shall be applicable to all agencies unless specifically exempted either by chapter 17A itself or by some other statute specifically referring to chapter 17A by name.