Lula L. Jenkins v. South Bend Community School Corp.
982 N.E.2d 343
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jenkins was discharged by SBCSC on September 9, 2008 for allegedly letting a student ride past the destination into SBCSC’s maintenance facility, citing rule 10 and rule 13 violations.
- SBCSC and the Union had a collective bargaining agreement requiring discharge for just cause, with a non-exhaustive list of just-cause examples, and an exclusive grievance/arbitration process.
- The grievance/arbitration provision states arbitrators’ decisions are advisory to the Superintendent and not binding on either party.
- The arbitration board determined on June 11, 2009 that just cause did not exist to terminate Jenkins and ordered reinstate with back pay, benefits, and seniority.
- SBCSC refused to follow the arbitrator’s award, invoking the advisory nature of the award under the CBA, and Jenkins and the Union sued for de novo judicial review of just-cause termination.
- The trial court granted SBCSC summary judgment, holding SBCSC could terminate Jenkins despite the advisory arbitrator ruling, and declined to conduct de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have conducted de novo review. | Jenkins argues for de novo review of just-cause termination. | SBCSC contends advisory arbitration precludes de novo review. | Reversed; de novo review required. |
| Whether the exclusive-remedy clause bars judicial review. | Exclusive-remedy clause functions as exhaustion-of-remedies, not a bar to court review. | Clause bars additional court review once arbitration is pursued. | Exclusive-remedy clause not a bar to judicial review; permits de novo review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litton Fin. Printing v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (non-compulsory arbitration unless contract requires it)
- Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers, 414 U.S. 368 (1974) (arbitral obligations depend on contract)
- Bopp v. Brames, 677 N.E.2d 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (arbitration findings final where question resolved)
- St. John Sanitary Dist. v. Schererville, 621 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (contractual arbitration scope and remedies)
- Ryan v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 959 N.E.2d 870 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (harmonizing contractual provisions; interpret contracts de novo)
- Shambaugh & Son, Inc. v. Carlisle, 763 N.E.2d 461 (Ind. 2002) (summary judgment standards in contract disputes)
- City of Lawrenceburg v. Milestone Contractors, L.P., 809 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (contract interpretation is a question of law)
- Bailey v. Mann, 895 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (contract interpretation; de novo review of ambiguity)
- Am. Mgmt., Inc. v. MIF Realty L.P., 666 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (summary judgment burden and standard)