Washington Teachers' Union Local 6 v. District of Columbia Public Schools
77 A.3d 441
D.C.2013Background
- WTU and DCPS dispute whether challenges to final IMPACT evaluation ratings for 2009-2010 are arbitrable under their CBA.
- IMPACT introduced: about 94 teachers rated ‘ineffective’ and ~670 ‘minimally effective’; drastic consequences for retention.
- WTU demanded AAA arbitration in Nov 2010 alleging rating defects and requesting rescission/expungement and replacement with ‘Effective’.
- DCPS sought a permanent stay under the Arbitration Act arguing CMPA preempts arbitration and that final ratings are non-arbitrable.
- Superior Court granted partial stay: arbitrator may consider process violations, but cannot rescind or amend final evaluation judgments; issue on arbitrability reviewed de novo by court.
- Key legal question: whether CMPA preempts the Arbitration Act for pre-arbitration relief and how the CBA provisions govern arbitrability and remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMPA preemption of pre-arbitration stay | WTU argues CMPA preempts Arbitration Act, denying court jurisdiction for pre-arbitration stay. | DCPS argues CMPA precludes pre-arbitration relief and requires CMPA remedies first. | CMPA does not preempt pre-arbitration relief under the Arbitration Act. |
| Arbitrability of final IMPACT ratings | WTU contends the CBA allows challenge to final IMPACT judgments through arbitration. | DCPS maintains final ratings are not arbitrable under §15.3. | Final evaluation judgments are non-arbitrable; process violations may be arbitrated. |
| CBA interpretation of §§ 15.3–15.6 | Reading together, challenges to process and judgments could be arbitrated with rescission as remedy. | §15.3 unambiguously excludes evaluation judgments from arbitration. | §15.3 is unambiguous; arbitrator cannot rescind or amend judgments. |
| Role of the court vs. arbitrator in arbitrability | Arbitrability question should be decided by arbitrator per presumption of arbitrability. | Court should decide arbitrability when the CBA is silent or does not clearly direct to arbitration. | Court properly decided arbitrability where the CBA was silent; pre-arbitration stay appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Federation of Gov't Emps., Local 3721 v. District of Columbia, 563 A.2d 361 (D.C.1989) (arbitration decision's scope and court role in determining arbitrability)
- District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police/Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee, 997 A.2d 65 (D.C.2010) (CMPA remedies and enforcement; post-arbitration relief framework)
- District of Columbia v. American Federation of Gov't Emps., Local 1403, 19 A.3d 764 (D.C.2011) (CMPA comprehensive framework; post-arbitration relief foremost)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (S. Ct. 2010) (presumption favoring arbitration limited by contract interpretation)