Opinion ID: 1198955
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Futility

Text: The superior court reasoned that even if Beard had exhausted his remedies and filed and won a grievance and gone back to work, the situation still would not have been corrected. He might have won the grievance, but he would not have won the war. We cannot conclude that a successful grievance would have provided Beard with a remedy so inadequate as to render futile his pursuit of the grievance procedure. Had Beard successfully grieved a constructive discharge, he would have been entitled to reinstatement with back pay. Even if we assume that reinstatement would have returned him to the same unsatisfactory environment, recovery of back pay for the period he was off work would nonetheless have given him a substantial remedy and would also have tended to discourage further harassing conduct by supervisors. Continued harassment would presumably have led to further successful grievances, up to and including another successful constructive discharge claim, leaving the State with the prospect of having a vacant position in the interim, or potentially paying both a salary to a replacement employee and back pay to Beard. The record reflects that Beard's collective bargaining agreement contained a five-step grievance process culminating in binding arbitration. Article 10, section 2, paragraph 3 of the CBA states: The arbitrator shall have the power to return a grievant to employee status with or without restoration of back pay, or mitigate the penalty as equity suggests under the facts. There was no evidence reinstatement with back pay was beyond the authority of the arbitrator. Further, the record reflects that Beard had successfully used the grievance process in the past. Senkow testified that he had processed five grievances for Beard and was successful in each case. The demonstrated success of the grievance process on those occasions refutes any argument that the grievance process was doomed to failure. In the absence of evidence that reinstatement and a monetary remedy were not available administratively, the superior court's conclusion of futility is wrong as a matter of law. We also note that the superior court's decision makes a fundamental assumption about something that should not be assumed: that the arbitrator could not have provided an adequate remedy. Article 10, section 1 of the CBA extends the agreement to any ... controversy or dispute having occasion to arise between the parties. Article 10, section 7 stipulates that the arbitrator shall have the authority to rule on arbitrability issues.... In the first instance, it was the arbitrator who had the authority and responsibility to determine the scope of the arbitrator's powers. Beard cannot base his futility argument on the theory the CBA did not allow the remedy he seeks when it was his failure to exhaust which prevented an arbitrator from deciding whether that remedy was administratively available. Because the CBA itself did not prevent the arbitrator from fashioning an adequate remedy, Beard cannot assert futility as an excuse for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.