WIBAUX EDUCATION ASSN v WIBAUX H
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13705 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF lllONTANA 1977 WIBAUX EDUCATION ASSOCIAT.ION, affilitated with Montana Education Association, Plaintiff and Appellant, w ~ ~ n u x m W HIGH SCHOOL co kt a%, , Defendants and Respondents. r,r: Appeal f : ~ n District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. Counsel cf Record: For Aspellant: Hilley and Loring, Great Falls, Montana Emilie Loring argued, Great Falls, Montana Fcr Respondents: R. W. Heineman argued, Wibaux, Montana Submitted: September 19, 1977 Decided: Filed: &u . . jA-N\Nfl318 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: P l a i n t i f f Wibaux Education Association appeals from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Wibaux County r e f u s i n g t o compel defendants Wibaux County High School and School D i s t r i c t No. 6 , and i t s T r u s t e e s , t o submit a teaching d i s p u t e t o a r b i t r a t i o n . The Wibaux High School Board of Trustees (School Board) employed Samuel R. Deckert f o r t h e school years of 1973-1974 and 1974-1975. I n the s p r i n g 1975, Deckert was s t i l l a "nontenured" teacher under s e c t i o n 75-6103, R.C.M. 1947, which provides t h a t tenure i s achieved when a teacher has been o f f e r e d and has accepted a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e f o u r t h consecutive year of employment. Deckert was t h e P r e s i d e n t of t h e Wibaux Education Associa- t i o n and a s a member was covered under a c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreement negotiated between t h e Association and the School Board. On March 31, 1975 t h e School Board n o t i f i e d Deckert i n w r i t i n g t h a t i t had passed a r e s o l u t i o n t o terminate h i s s e r v i c e s a t t h e end of t h e 1974-1975 school year. Pursuant t o t h a t p o r t i o n t h e c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreement r e l a t i n g t o nontenured teachers, Deckert requested a hearing upon t h e board's d e c i s i o n t o terminate h i s c o n t r a c t . A hearing was h e l d . O A p r i l 14, n 1975 t h e School Board reaffirmed i t s d e c i s i o n t o terminate Deckert . Deckert then followed grievance procedures under A r t i c l e V of t h e agreement and requested t h e chairman of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s P r o f e s s i o n a l Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Committee t o submit t h e dispute t o a r b i t r a t i o n . On May 19, 1975 t h e chairman made a w r i t t e n request f o r a r b i t r a t i o n t o t h e School Board, but t h e School Board d i d not reply. On August 1 2 , 1975 an a d d i t i o n a l demand was made t o a r b i t r a t e but t h e School Board again d i d not r e p l y . Acting a s t h e bargaining agent f o r Deckert t h e Association f i l e d s u i t The i n D i s t r i c t Court t o compel t h e School Board t o a r b i t r a t e . c o u r t denied t h e request and t h i s appeal followed. This c a s e comes t o us on a c e r t i f i e d statement of t h e record and an agreed statement of f a c t s . The s o l e i s s u e i s whether Deckert's claim of improper nonrenewal i s s u b j e c t t o arbitration. The School Board claims Deckert was accorded a l l t h e procedural r i g h t s t o which he was e n t i t l e d under t h e c o n t r a c t and by Montana s t a t u t e s , and t h a t an agreement t o a r b i t r a t e did not and could n o t include a r b i t r a t i o n of t h e School Board's s o l e r i g h t t o n o t renew Deckert's teaching c o n t r a c t . The Association contends t h e i s s u e must go t o an a r b i t r a t o r and t h a t an a r b i t r a t o r has t h e u l t i m a t e . r i g h t t o overrule t h e School Board i n i t s nonrenewal d e c i s i o n . I t argues the School Board, a s t h e r e s u l t of the give and take of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, has agreed t o a r b i t r a t e t h i s i s s u e . A t t h e time t h e c o n t r a c t was n e g o t i a t e d , t h e school f i s c a l year 1974-1975, t h e only s t a t u t e r e l a t i n g t o r i g h t s of a nontenured t e a c h e r was s e c t i o n 75-6105.1, R.C.M. 1947. I t pro- vided t h a t t h e school board must give n o t i c e t o a l l nontenured teachers by A p r i l 1st of each year, i f i t does n o t intend t o renew t h e i r contracts. A f a i l u r e t o do so r e s u l t e d i n automatic renewal of t h e i r c o n t r a c t s . I t was not required t h a t t h e school board have j u s t cause f o r nonrenewal of t h e i r c o n t r a c t s . Nor does t h e s t a t u t e , a s amended i n 1975, p r e s e n t l y r e q u i r e j u s t cause f o r nonrenewal of a c o n t r a c t of a nontenured teacher. I n t h e 1974-1975 c o n t r a c t t h e p a r t i e s included an A r t i c l e which e s t a b l i s h e d mandatory evaluation procedures f o r nontenured teachers before they could be considered f o r nonrenewal. Article VI1,A. A second provision provided t h e hearing s t e p s which must be followed i f requested by a nontenured teacher whose c o n t r a c t was not renewed. A r t i c l e VII,B. If requested, the School Board was required t o hold a hearing a s t o t h e reasons why t h e nontenured t e a c h e r ' s c o n t r a c t was n o t renewed. The A r t i c l e provides no remedies f o r f a i l u r e of t h e school o f f i c i a l s t o comply with the hearing procedures. I n any event, t h e Association agrees t h e school o f f i c i a l s followed the proper evaluation procedures and t h e School Board was requested t o and did conduct a proper hearing. The i s s u e was joined when the School Board, a f t e r i t s hearing, reaffirmed i t s d e c i s i o n t o terminate Deckert. He f i l e d a request through t h e Association t o submit t h e i s s u e of h i s nonrenewal t o a r b i t r a t i o n . nonrenewal a 11 The Association labeled Deckert ' s grievance" and accordingly f i l e d a demand f o r F a r b i t r a t i o n under t h e grievance procedure. The School Board refused t o a r b i t r a t e t h e i s s u e of nonrenewal and t h e Association then f i l e d a complaint i n D i s t r i c t Court seeking an o r d e r t o arbitrate. I t was denied, and t h i s appeal followed. W must e determine whether t h e per s e nonrenewal of a nontenured t e a c h e r ' s c o n t r a c t c o n s t i t u t e s a "grievance" and thus i s s u b j e c t t o t h e binding d e c i s i o n of an a r b i t r a t o r . Per s e nonrenewal of e i t h e r a tenured o r nontenured teacher i s n o t expressly covered i n t h e c o n t r a c t . Nonrenewal i s only mentioned under A r t i c l e VII which i s confined t o the e v a l u a t i o n procedures and hearing procedures f o r nontenured teachers. A r t i c l e V , s e c t i o n A , a "grievance" i s defined thusly: Under "A grievance may be defined a s a claim based upon an event o r condition which a f f e c t s t h e conditions o r circumstances under which a teacher works, a l l e g e d l y caused by misinterpret a t i o n o r i n e q u i t a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n of e s t a b l i s h e d d i s t r i c t p o l i c i e s , s t a t u t e s , o r t h e terms of a negotia ted c o n t r a c t ." The Association o f f e r s no explanation of how t h i s s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n a p p l i e s t o t h e per s e nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher. The Association broadly a s s e r t s t h a t t h e "grievance1' d e f i n i t i o n "would c l e a r l y cover a claim t h a t a teacher's cont r a c t was improperly non-renewed." W can only conclude t h a t e s i n c e a l l "grievances" must be a r b i t r a t e d under the c o n t r a c t , t h e Association b e l i e v e s t h a t i f nonrenewal i s s t a t e d a s a 'I grievance1' i t must t h e r e f o r e be a r b i t r a t e d . Following' t h i s supposition t o t o i t s l o g i c a l conclusion would mean t h a t i n a l l cases involving nonrenewal of a nontenured t e a c h e r ' s c o n t r a c t , i f t h e teacher and Association demand i t , t h e nonrenewal d e c i s i o n must be a r b i t r a t e d . This would mean t h a t i n a l l c a s e s t h e a r b i t r a t o r and n o t t h e school board would make t h e determination of whether o r not t o renew t h e c o n t r a c t of a nontenured teacher. I t i s c l e a r t h a t a r b i t r a t i o n under A r t i c l e V I I would be a v a i l a b l e on a l i m i t e d b a s i s i f the "grievance" was t h a t t h e school o f f i c i a l s o r School Board f a i l e d t o comply with e i t h e r t h e e v a l u a t i o n o r hearing procedures o u t l i n e d i n subsections A and B. Exactly what r e l i e f an a r b i t r a t o r could g r a n t , we a r e n o t prepared t o say, and i t i s n o t necessary t o our d e c i s i o n h e r e f o r i t i s agreed t h e evaluation procedures and hearing procedures were properly followed. Here, i t appears t h e Association i s seeking t o imply a "just-cause" provision i n t o A r t i c l e V I I of t h e agreement. s t a t e d b e f o r e , t h i s c l a u s e covers only t h e e v a l u a t i o n and As h e a r i n g procedures. Although t h e Association concedes t h e School Board has t h e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o h i r e and nonrenew t h e c o n t r a c t s of nontenured t e a c h e r s , i t contends t h e School Board has "bargained away" t h i s r i g h t by placing t h e u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n with an a r b i t r a t o r . However, where t h e agreement does n o t mention t h e s u b j e c t of who makes t h e u l t i m a t e nonrenewal d e c i s i o n , we cannot s o e a s i l y d e c l a r e t h a t t h e School Board has "bargained away" i t s a u t h o r i t y t o t h e a r b i t r a t o r . The h i r i n g and nonrenewal of teachers i n Montana is recognized a s a function t h a t belongs t o t h e school boards. School boards have c o n t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s under A r t i c l e X , Section 8 , 1972 Montana Constitiltion, which provides: "The supervision and c o n t r o l of schools i n each school d i s t r i c t s h a l l be vested i n a board of t r u s t e e s t o be e l e c t e d a s provided by law." A t t h e time t h e agreement here was n e g o t i a t e d t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had given school boards t h e exclusive r i g h t t o h i r e and terminate teachers. Chapter 59, T i t l e 75 covered t h e powers and d u t i e s of school boards. Section 75-5933, R.C.M. 1947, provided i n relevant part: "As prescribed elsewhere i n t h i s t i t l e , the t r u s t e e s of each d i s t r i c t s h a l l have t h e power and i t s h a l l be i t s duty t o perform t h e following d u t i e s or acts: "(1) employ o r dismiss a teacher, p r i n c i p a l o r o t h e r a s s i s t a n t upon t h e recommendation of the d i s t r i c t superintendent, t h e county high school p r i n c i p a l , o r o t h e r p r i n c i p a l a s t h e board may deem necessary, accepting o r r e j e c t i n g such recommendation a s the trustees s h a l l i n t h e i r sole discretion determine, i n accordance with t h e provisions of t h e school *.Ir (Emphasis added.) personnel chapter of t h i s t i t l e ** I t i s undisputed h e r e t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e high school personnel recommended nonrenewal of Deckert's c o n t r a c t . It i s c l e a r a l s o t h a t t h i s power was given only t o t h e School Board. Chapter 61, T i t l e 75, Revised Codes of Montana, covered t h e r i g h t s , d u t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s of t e a c h e r s , superintendents and principals. Sections 75-6115 through 75-6128, R.C.M. 1947 ( s i n c e repealed) were declared t o be t h e "Professional Negotiations Act f o r Teachers". Section 75-6119 s p e c i f i c a l l y provided t h a t i n n e g o t i a t i o n s between teachers and t h e school board t h a t : ** The matters of n e g o t i a t i o n and bargaining f o r agreement s h a l l n o t include matters of curriculum, p o l i c y of operation, s e l e c t i o n of t e a c h e r s and o t h e r personnel, o r physical p l a n t of school o r o t h e r facilities (Emphasis added.) It* * * *." I t i s p l a i n from s e c t i o n 75-6119 t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended s e l e c t i o n and concomitant r i g h t of nonrenewal t o be e x c l u s i v e l y t h e province of t h e school boards. These laws manifest a c l e a r i n t e n t by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o l i m i t t h e a r e a s of n e g o t i a t i o n . The Associatcon argues t h a t d e s p i t e such s t a t u t e s , i t i s within t h e power of school boards t o confer more c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t s t o teachers than they a r e e n t i t l e d t o by t h e s t a t u t e s . See f o r example: Danville Board of School D i r e c t o r s v. F i f i e l d , (1974), 132 V t . 271, 315 A.2d 473; Teachers of Huntington v. Board of Education, D i s t r i c t No. 3 , (1969), 303 N.Y.S.2d 469; Board of Education, Yonkers City School D i s t r i c t v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers, (1976), 40 N.Y. 2d 268, 353 N.E.2d 569; Board of Education v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local No. 3, (1975), 464 Pa.92, 346 A.2d 35; Milberry v. Board of Education of School D i s t . of Phi1.,(1976), 559. 467 Pa. 79, 354 A.2d C e r t a i n l y t h e r e a r e a r e a s within which t h e t e a c h e r s may l e g i t i m a t e l y bargain f o r g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n f o r i t s members than i s provided by s t a t u t e . But h e r e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded s e l e c t i o n of teachers from t h e n e g o t i a t i o n process. None of t h e cases c i t e d by t h e Association hold t h a t t h i s can be done where s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d by s t a t u t e . The Association has n o t challenged t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e s . I t can be argued of course, t h a t s e c t i o n 75-6119 p r o h i b i t s only t h e s e l e c t i o n of teachers from being a s u b j e c t f o r negot i a t i o n , b u t does n o t p r o h i b i t t h e termination o r nonrenewal of t e a c h e r s from being a s u b j e c t f o r n e g o t i a t i o n . I f t h a t were s o , i t would have been a simple matter f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o so declare. Furthermore, s e c t i o n 75-5933 s t a t e s t h a t i t i s w i t h i n t h e " s o l e d i s c r e t i o n " of t h e school board t o "employ o r dismiss a teacher". I t i s c l e a r t h a t nonrenewal of nontenured teachers was n o t covered by t h e agreement o r allowed by t h e law then i n e f f e c t . (See s e c t i o n s 59-1601 through 59-1617, R.C.M 1947, f o r t h e law p r e s e n t l y covering c o l l e c t i v e bargaining f o r teachers and public employees i n general. ) The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W Concur: e A I \ ~ h y e fJ u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
