*1 by UHLENHOPP, P.J., Considered HARRIS, McCORMICK,McGIYERIN, and WATERLOO EDUCATION WOLLE, JJ. ASSOCIATION, Appellant, UHLENHOPP, Justice. WATERLOO COMMUNITY SCHOOL appeal This involves the interrelationship DISTRICT, Appellee. chapters 20 between and 279 the of Iowa Code. A collectively-bargained agreement exist-

Supreme of Iowa. Court ed between the Waterloo Education Associ- ation the July 31, 1985. District. McDougall, Paula a member of Rehearing Sept. Denied 1985. association, the employed was as a teacher by agreement. the agreement contained an Article III on bind- ing arbitration. discipline Article XVIII on and dismissal stated: A. The place District shall not an em- ployee probation, on employ- withhold an ee from advancement on the schedule, suspend or or discharge an em- ployee except proper cause. employee put No discipli- shall be on a probation nary for more than twelve consecutive calendar months for reason. employee by

-B. If an is notified the Superintendent, Assistant Division of Personnel, proposed suspension of a or discharge, employee request hearing Superintend- have before the pro- ent to the submission of posed suspension discharge or to the request of Directors. The must Board writing made in within school three after days receipt notification Superintendent, from the Assistant Divi- of Personnel. sion ques- an employee the event C. tions sus- discharge, pension employee or appealing have election sus- pension or under the of Section 279.13 of Code of as S.P. Iowa amended 205 of Iowa filing Assembly General 1977 or Becky E. S. Knutson Charles Gribble grievance at IV of Level the Grievance P.C., Moines, Gribble, & Des Sayre set III. Once Procedure forth Article appellant. made, employee the election is cannot Stephen change procedure F. J. Powell thereafter from one Charles Swisher and Waterloo, Cohrt, other. appellee. & of Swisher *2 268 teacher, 11, 1983, discharge of a but rather a the district served

On March decision, dispute. notice and recommenda- The rationale of the McDougall with a to sec- pursuant however, contract favoring tion to terminate arbitration when autho- Code, stating that contract, of the Iowa tion 279.15 in line rized is with Shen- to recommend superintendent would andoah. McDougall’s employment that the directors is Borgen most recent decision Our end reasons at the specified terminate for (Iowa 1985). Anderson, 366 N.W.2d 583 year. of the school very close on its facts to the That case is at level IV McDougall grievance filed a declining enroll- present one. Because no and alleging that ment, to superintendent recommended Af- termination. existed for of the the board the district re- proceedings, ter various that the teacher’s contract terminate Code The association com- fused to arbitrate. year. question The at the end of the school seeking to en- the instant action menced proceed could un- was whether the district contract. clause in the force the arbitration right 279 or the teacher had a der adjudication of district moved for The to under the contract. The arbitration summary judgment. points and for law prevailed in the district court and teacher hearing, court held that After indistinguishable The case is this court. arbitrate, required not to the district was practical purposes from the for the motions. The association and sustained one. appealed. presents district several provides Chapter I. 20 of the Iowa Code in of its view that it had arguments support by public employ- for collective chapter 279. legal right a to collectively-bargained con- permits ees and however, find, arguments that were We require binding to arbitration. tracts rejected deci- considered Chapter contains the statu- 279 and, exception, that no terminating tory provisions for teachers’ reason exists to belabor them. cases, majority In contracts. a series separate Chapter II. 279 contains two held that sections 279.15to .18 of this court terminating provisions for a teacher’s em- the Code do not constitute the exclusive contracts, terminating ployment: means for teachers’ termination at the end of the contract, may that be “just year contract for cause” chapter 20. substituted under 279.15(2) (“The notification and the to terminate shall contain recommendations holding was The first decision so Shen reasons, plain a short and statement of the andoah Education Ass’n Shenandoah cause, just why the shall be for which N.W.2d 477 337 made.”), being recommendation is (Iowa 1983). teacher had In that case one time for termination at cause” budget con laid off because of to be (“A teacher under section 279.27 straints, necessity, program economic discharged at proceeded un rearrangement. The district cause.”). year just following of the for Shenandoah 279.15 and der sections teacher, regarding the latter regard to a certain but this court stated Code with demanded arbitration under the teacher sion: This court held the teacher could contract. important distinguish to this case It is also Ferree v. arbitration. See involving discharge just from cases for Education,

Board of personal is to the teacher cause which (Iowa 1983). in provided Iowa Code section subject The latter is not a man- Subsequently court decided Iowa this bargaining under Iowa datory subject of v. Iowa City Community School Dist. (1981). Statutory ap- Ass’n, Code section 20.9 343 N.W.2d 139 City Education in peal procedures provided Iowa Code That decision did not involve chapter 279 take precedence would when The district court should have overruled the issue is adjudicate teacher the motions points law just cause under section 279.27. summary judgment.

Shenandoah, 337 N.W.2d at 481. REVERSED. argues The district this exception All McGIVERIN, Justices concur except governs section *3 279.27 J., who dissents. case, exception but the no application has

here. The documents in the record reveal McGIVERIN, Justice (dissenting). attempted in- my For reasons stated in concurrence following. stead under sections 279.15 in part and in part dissent in Shenandoah It not attempt did to terminate the contract Education Association v. Shenandoah “at year” District, Community School Instead, attempted it 477, (Iowa 1983), 483-86 I respectfully dis to terminate the contract “effective at from majority sent opinion here. end of the year” current school I would affirm the ruling of the district 279.15(1). court. finally III. We note that Article XVIII of the contract previously quoted speaks of cause”, “good

whereas section authorizes termi-

nation for cause”. alsoWe note that provides:

section 20.28 of the Code provision

A which is incon- sistent term or condition aof PORTH, Gary Appellee, J. bargaining agreement collective which is chapter final made under this su- persede the term or condition of the col- IOWA DEPARTMENT OF JOB bargaining agreement lective unless oth- SERVICE, Appellant, provided by general assembly. erwise provision A aof collective bar- gaining agreement negotiated according Corporation, Auto Jet Muffler

to this which conflicts with the Respondent. Code shall not provision become agreement un- final collective general til the assembly has amended Supreme Court of Iowa. Code to remove conflict. July 31, 1985. our that “the addition we note statement law now writes to 279.19 of sections 279.13 Code into teachers’ contracts” Bru

ton Ames

N.W.2d parties argued have not the effect of disparate language in Article XVIII 279.15(2),

and section do not ad- we point likely the issue. The

dress will arise proceedings

resolution there. This issue relates to the grounds

substantive for termination rather procedural question

than the of section proceedings

279.15 vis-a-vis arbitration.