Court Opinion

ID: 9512070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:11:09.149443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:17.060672
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LEAPHART,
concurring.
¶34 I agree with the Court’s analysis and framing of the issue as whether there was a ‘live” case or controversy in the District Court. The Court concludes that since the grievance sought “any additional relief necessary,” it was appropriate for the arbitrator to resolve the parties’ conflicting interpretations of the Agreement, even though the specific concerns giving rise to this dispute were fait accompli. Given that the grievance sought any “additional relief necessary to rectify this matter,”(i.e., the particular layoff at issue), allowing the matter to proceed to arbitration as an abstract interpretation of contract hangs on a very thin thread. However, in the interest of liberally interpreting pleadings, I give the grievance the benefit of the doubt.
¶35 Obviously, if the grievance had specifically sought declaratory relief rather than being so focused on the one-week reduction, the Court would not have to divine the pleader’s true intent under the catch-all prayer for “any additional relief necessary.”