Court Opinion

ID: 9670663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:24:04.181219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.872376
License: Public Domain

P. J. Conlin, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Nonrenewal of probationary teachers is subject to the procedures specified in the teacher tenure act, MCL 38.71 et seq.; MSA 15.1971 et seq. Although the act does not provide for a hearing at the school board level or for review of a board’s decision that a probationary teacher’s contract would not be renewed, article 10(A)(1) of the collective bargaining agreement established a faculty tenure advisory committee to review a probationary teacher’s performance. Article 10(A)(1)(c) unequivocally dictates that the superintendent’s approval of the committee’s recommendation is subject only to the review and final action of the board of education. In construing these provisions, I would find that the agreement contained forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the issue of nonrenewal of probationary teachers from arbitration. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist No 6 v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers’ Ass’n, 393 Mich 583, 592; 227 NW2d 500 (1975); Lanting v Jenison Public Schools, 103 Mich App 165, 175; 302 NW2d 631 (1981). Accordingly, I would hold that an arbitrator does not have the authority under article 13(G)(2) of the bargaining agreement to rule on Wingeier’s claims.
I also note that defendant alleges that Wingeier *171was unjustifiably discharged because article 10(B) (2) provides that no teacher shall be disciplined without just cause. However, defendant’s reliance on this provision is misplaced because Wingeier was not "disciplined, reprimanded, reduced in rank or compensation”; thus, the just-cause provision was not invoked. Notably, the preceding provision, article 10(B)(1), provides that all dismissals shall be handled in accordance with the teacher tenure act. Defendant also alleged that article 11(C)(3) was violated in that Wingeier was provided only a one-week notice regarding her performance. This provision does not refer to a period in which the principal must provide suggestions for improvement. Because there is no allegation that Wingeier did not receive suggestions, the claim did not fall under article 11(C)(3). Defendant, therefore, has not made any claim that on its face is governed by the contract.
Accordingly, I would find that Wingeier’s grievance was not subject to arbitration under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, that the trial court’s decision to enjoin the arbitration was not erroneous.