W. Branch Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. W. Branch Edn. Assn.
35 N.E.3d 551
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- West Branch Board hired teacher Tracie McFerren on limited/extended limited contracts; her contract was set to expire June 30, 2013, and the Board decided not to renew after a June 10, 2013 hearing.
- The Board and West Branch Education Association (Association) were parties to a CBA (July 1, 2012–June 30, 2014) containing a multi-level grievance procedure culminating in binding arbitration for disputes over interpretation/application of the CBA; the CBA’s Teacher Evaluation provision superseded R.C. 3319.111.
- The Association filed a grievance alleging the Board violated, misinterpreted, or misapplied CBA provisions (including Teacher Evaluation and Continuing Contracts) and sought arbitration and remedies including a continuing contract for McFerren.
- The Board responded that the grievance was not arbitrable and filed suit in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions to bar arbitration.
- The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and later granted preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining arbitration; the appellate court considered whether the grievance was arbitrable under the CBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grievance is subject to arbitration under the CBA | The CBA and R.C. 3319.11 require appeals from nonrenewal to common pleas court; teacher nonrenewal is governed by statute, not arbitrable | The CBA defines grievances to include alleged violations of the agreement (including evaluations/continuing-contract decisions) and provides binding arbitration; CBA evaluation provisions supersede statute | The grievance is arbitrable under the CBA; arbitration favored |
| Whether R.C. 3319.11 bars arbitration and limits judicial review to procedural errors | R.C. 3319.11 provides the statutory route (common pleas) for nonrenewal disputes and limits courts to procedural issues, so arbitration is precluded | Where the CBA expressly supersedes R.C. 3319.111 (evaluation procedures) and grievance alleges substantive CBA violations (failure to provide written improvement direction), the dispute is not a purely procedural statutory issue and fits the CBA’s arbitration clause | R.C. 3319.11 does not preclude arbitration of substantive CBA evaluation claims; court lacks exclusive jurisdiction here |
| Whether the trial court properly granted a permanent injunction to enjoin arbitration | Board argued likelihood of success and that arbitration was not available, justifying injunction | Association argued that (de novo review) contract interpretation shows arbitrability and that injunction should be denied | Trial court erred; appellate court reversed and remanded with instruction to deny permanent injunction |
| Standard of review for arbitrability determination | Trial court discretion for injunctions (Board) | Contract interpretation is a question of law; de novo review appropriate (Association) | Court applied de novo review to CBA language and contract interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (courts should not decide merits of underlying grievance when determining arbitrability)
- Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 162 (Ohio 1994) (R.C. 3319.111 governs evaluations unless CBA specifically provides otherwise)
- Brannen v. Kings Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 144 Ohio App.3d 620 (Ohio App. 2001) (when CBA provides binding arbitration, arbitration is exclusive remedy for CBA violations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review)
- Garono v. State, 37 Ohio St.3d 171 (Ohio 1988) (injunctions are within trial court’s discretion)
- Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 130 Ohio St.3d 411 (Ohio 2011) (arbitration-favoring principles in Ohio contract law)