Opinion ID: 2197440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Application of Section 10(b)

Text: Having established the proper construction of section 10(b), we return to our inquiry of whether the arbitration award in the instant appeal is binding. As stated, the arbitration award directs that the notice to remedy be rescinded and all printed materials relating to the incident be removed from Wehrle's personnel records. The arbitrator granted this relief to Wehrle based upon his ruling that the District violated the just cause provision of the collective-bargaining agreement. If, however, the just cause provision is in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with an Illinois statute, then it cannot be implemented in the arbitration award. The appellate court found that the just cause provision is inconsistent and conflicts with sections 10-22.4 and 24-12 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 122, pars. 10-22.4, 24-12). Section 10-22.4 of the School Code gives a school board the following power: To dismiss a teacher for incompetency, cruelty, negligence, immorality or other sufficient cause, to dismiss any teacher who fails to complete a 1-year remediation plan with a `satisfactory' or better rating and to dismiss any teacher whenever, in its opinion, he is not qualified to teach, or whenever, in its opinion, the interests of the schools require it, subject, however, to the provisions of Sections 24-10 to 24-15, inclusive. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 122, par. 10-22.4.) Section 24-12 of the School Code provides: If a dismissal or removal is sought for any other reason or cause, including those under Section 10-22.4, the board must first approve a motion containing specific charges by a majority vote of all its members. Written notice of such charges shall be served upon the teacher within 5 days of the adoption of the motion. Such notice shall contain a bill of particulars. No hearing upon the charges is required unless the teacher within 10 days after receiving notice requests in writing of the board that a hearing be scheduled, in which case the board shall schedule a hearing on those charges before a disinterested hearing officer on a date no less than 15 nor more than 30 days after the enactment of the motion.    Before setting a hearing on charges stemming from causes that are considered remediable, a board must give the teacher reasonable warning in writing, stating specifically the causes which, if not removed, may result in charges. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 122, par. 24-12. The Board and the Association argue that implementation of the just cause provision supplements sections 10-22.4 and 24-12 of the School Code, and therefore is not prohibited by section 10(b) of the Act. The second sentence of section 10(b) authorizes the parties to a collective-bargaining process to implement a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement if the implementation of that provision has the effect of supplementing any provision in any Illinois statute pertaining to wages, hours or other conditions of employment. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 1710(b).) According to the Board and the Association, the School Code contains no provision concerning the removal of a notice to remedy following successful remediation. Therefore, the availability of a grievance-arbitration process for challenging the propriety of a notice to remedy supplements the rights afforded under the School Code. This court has not previously examined section 10(b) with regard to sections 10-22.4 and 24-12 of the School Code. While we acknowledge that section 10(b) permits a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement to supplement a statute pertaining to wages, hours or other conditions of employment, it does not allow such supplementary language to be in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with the School Code. After examining sections 10-22.4 and 24-12 of the School Code, we find that implementation of the just cause provision through a grievance-arbitration procedure does not supplement the requisite provisions of the School Code. Rather, it is inconsistent and conflicts with sections 10-22.4 and 24-12 of the School Code. Sections 10-22.4 and 24-12 provide mandatory procedural requirements for a school board's dismissal of a tenured teacher. Section 10-22.4 grants a school board the authority to dismiss a teacher. Section 24-12 prescribes the procedure for the dismissal of a tenured teacher pursuant to section 10-22.4. Specifically, section 24-12 requires a school board to provide a tenured teacher with a written warning when the teacher's conduct is found to be remediable. (Ill.Rev. Stat.1989, ch. 122, par. 24-12.) A notice to remedy represents such a warning. It notifies a teacher that, unless his or her conduct is corrected, he or she may face charges subject to dismissal. From the above it is evident that the procedural requirements for dismissal incorporate the school board's duty to make the initial determination of whether a teacher's conduct is remediable. In essence, a corollary to the school board's power to dismiss is its corresponding duty to issue a notice to remedy under the appropriate circumstances. Therefore, we find that the issuance of a notice to remedy is an integral part of the statutory scheme for dismissal. Here, the District, in compliance with sections 24-12 and 10-22.4, issued Wehrle a notice to remedy and thereby afforded him an opportunity to remove the causes which would otherwise be grounds for dismissal. The District's issuance of the notice to remedy occurred within the confines of the School Code's statutory removal process. By requiring the rescission of the notice to remedy, the arbitrator relied on the collective-bargaining agreement's just cause provision to ultimately challenge the District's decision to issue a notice to remedy. We find that the implementation of the just cause provision in arbitration is inconsistent and conflicts with the mandates established pursuant to section 24-12 of the School Code. As noted, section 24-12 recognizes the school board's dismissal authority under section 10-22.4 and prescribes the process for dismissal. We agree with the appellate court that to allow an arbitrator to decide whether a school board acted with just cause in issuing a notice to remedy against a tenured teacher is inconsistent and conflicts with the School Code, which grants the power of dismissal to the school board. As an integral part of the School Code's dismissal process, the District is given the authority to issue a notice to remedy when it determines that causes for dismissal are nevertheless remediable. The just cause provision challenges that authority and provides a duplicate method for ultimately challenging the process for dismissal. As a result, the grievance arbitration proceeding which relies on the just cause provision to contest a notice to remedy is prohibited by the dictates of section 10(b) of the Act.