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.
Appeal f : ~ n District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
r,r:
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: jA-N\Nfl318
Filed: &u -. .
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 employ-
ment. 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
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 . The
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 non-
tenured 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 . The Association labeled Deckert ' s
11
nonrenewal a 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. Under
A r t i c l e V , s e c t i o n A , a "grievance" i s defined thusly:
"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 misinterpre-
t 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 con-
t 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. As
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
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 deter-
mine, i n accordance with t h e provisions of t h e school
personnel chapter of t h i s t i t l e ** *.Ir (Emphasis added.)
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 :
It* ** 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.)
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), 467 Pa. 79, 354 A.2d
559. 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 nego-
t 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