Valley Grove Sch. Dist. v. Valley Grove Educ. Ass'n

Full title: Valley Grove School District v. Valley Grove Education Association…

Court: COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 21, 2015

No. 1348 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. May. 21, 2015)

Opinion

No. 1348 C.D. 2014

05-21-2015

Valley Grove School District v. Valley Grove Education Association, PSEA/NEA, Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT

The Valley Grove Education Association (Union) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County (trial court) that vacated an arbitration award in favor of Union. The trial court concluded that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the placement of an employee of the Valley Grove School District (School District) on the collective bargaining agreement's (CBA) payment schedule. We affirm.

The case began with a grievance filed by Union against the School District regarding placement of teachers on the salary schedule set forth in the CBA. The salary schedule in Appendix A of the CBA contains two classifications, "Master's +15" and "Master's +30," corresponding to credits earned by a teacher beyond what is required for a Master's Degree. Teachers receive pay increases according to the credits they have earned; however, the CBA does not provide when these credits must be completed. Union believed that the Master's schedules were meant to compensate teachers who had taken courses beyond what was required by a Master's degree at any time. The School District viewed the Master's schedules as a way to incentivize teachers to remain current with educational developments and, thus, believed the payment schedules applied only to credits earned after the completion of a Master's Degree. Union filed a grievance to resolve this dispute and the matter went to binding arbitration before Arbitrator Jane Minnich (Arbitrator).

A hearing was held on September 14, 2012. Justine Cashdollar, a kindergarten teacher, testified on behalf of Union. She explained that she had earned 18 credits beyond the requirements of a Master's Degree. She earned these credits prior to and concurrently with her Master's Degree. When Cashdollar realized that she was not being compensated according to the Master's +15 schedule, she requested additional compensation. The School District rejected her request. Cashdollar had been involved in the negotiation of the CBA and Appendix A, and this was the first time she learned of the School District's position that a teacher must earn the extra credits after completing her Master's Degree in order to qualify for the salary incentive. Cashdollar explained that Union did not intend to place temporal restrictions on placement of teachers on the Master's +15 schedule.

On cross-examination, Cashdollar was questioned about her 18 credits. She and counsel for the School District engaged in the following discussion:

[Counsel for School District]: These courses were part of the Master's program? Not your degree but you got them and they were part of the Master's Program?

[Cashdollar]: No. These were not.

[Counsel for School District]: What kind of courses were they? Were they just regular curriculum courses in the [education] department?

[Cashdollar]: Initially ... I needed to have those for my continuing ed credits. I have started those. And then I had a few opportunities to go through Clarion [University] and do a course in Bloomsburg. So they were just courses that I had opportunities to take.

[Counsel for School District]: Well, I guess my question is, were they courses that would have been restricted for instances to Master's candidates?

[Cashdollar]: No, not in my particular case; no.

[Counsel for School District]: Well, that's what I mean. The courses that you just identified for me were courses that any education student at that institution might have taken?

[Cashdollar]: Yes.

Reproduced Record at 61a (R.R. ___). Cashdollar testified that all the courses were 500-level or higher.¹

1 University courses are coded based on the academic difficulty associated with that course. For instance, introductory courses are often coded as "101." Frequently, four-year college programs require students to take courses up to the 400-level, while 500-level and above courses are reserved for graduate students.

On December 20, 2012, the Arbitrator issued an arbitration award (Award I) in favor of Union. The Arbitrator concluded that teachers must be placed on the Master's schedule if they have earned the required credits, regardless of when they are earned. The opinion explained:

The [School] District violated [the CBA] when it denied bargaining unit members salary schedule placement for graduate credits earned before or after a Master's Degree. Grievant Justine Cashdollar testified that her eighteen surplus credits earned before her Master's Degree were not graduate level credits, but rather, earned in courses open to all education students. As such credits have not been accepted as countable for purposes of the "Master's +15" and "Master's +30" salary schedules, the [School] District did not violate the [CBA] to the extent that it denied credit for Ms. Cashdollar's non-graduate level credits. However, because the grievance was also filed on behalf of other bargaining unit members, any lack of a contractual violation with regard to Ms. Cashdollar is not dispositive of the grievance. A review of staff pay and education records will determine the existence of a contractual violation with respect to other bargaining unit members.

R.R. 144a (emphasis added). The Award stated, in relevant part:

The parties are directed to jointly review the pay and education records of all bargaining unit members in order to determine and implement proper placement on the salary schedules in accordance with this Award. The District is directed to pay affected bargaining unit members all salary lost as a result of improper placement on the schedules, retroaction to April 14, 2012 ... along with any applicable statutory interest. The undersigned shall retain jurisdiction should a dispute arise over the implementation of this Award.

R.R. 145a (emphasis added).

After Award I was issued, the parties engaged in a joint review of the pay and education records of bargaining unit members and adjusted the placement of several bargaining unit members consistent with the Arbitrator's decision. The parties agreed that placement on the Master's schedule would be based solely on the number of 500-level or higher credits earned by the teacher, regardless of when the credits were earned. Union sought to adjust Cashdollar's placement on the salary schedule, but the School District refused to reconsider her salary because Award I specifically held that the School District did not have to give Cashdollar credit for her "non-graduate level credits." R.R. 144a.

On May 2, 2013, Union requested the Arbitrator to revise Cashdollar's placement on the salary schedule under the new guidelines the parties had established. The School District objected to any additional proceedings with respect to Cashdollar on the grounds that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to reconsider Award I relative to Cashdollar.

On June 21, 2013, the Arbitrator issued an opinion, titled "Retention of Jurisdiction" (Award II), in which she concluded that she had jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether Cashdollar was entitled to placement on the Master's +15 schedule. Acknowledging that Award I had denied relief to Cashdollar, the Arbitrator nonetheless found jurisdiction in the language of Award I retaining jurisdiction "should a dispute arise over the implementation of the award." R.R. 145a. Thus, the Arbitrator explained:

While the body of [Award I] states that the School District did not violate the Agreement in denying credit [for] Ms. Cashdollar's non-graduate level credits, this finding only addressed the type of credits countable. Having found that the undersigned has retained jurisdiction for the issue presented, further proceedings can now be scheduled.

R.R. 178a.

After receiving stipulated facts, the Arbitrator issued an opinion on October 2, 2013, titled "Determination of Remedial Issue" (Award III). In this opinion, the Arbitrator concluded that compliance with Award I required the parties to review Cashdollar's educational and pay records anew and adjust her salary accordingly. The Arbitrator rationalized her break from her holding in Award I as follows:

Ms. Cashdollar's testimony regarding her additional credits was based upon her understanding at the time of the arbitration hearing on September 14, 2012. The undersigned's discussion of that testimony was for the limited purpose of determining what credits could be counted for salary schedule placement purposes - with the determination being graduate level credits. Subsequent to [Award I], the parties jointly defined graduate level credits as those earned in classes designated as 500-level or higher. This definition and standard was then applied to all bargaining unit employees except Ms. Cashdollar. To hold Ms. Cashdollar to her understanding of graduate level coursework before it was jointly defined by the parties creates an inconsistency that is at odds with the parties' joint agreement following [Award I] as well as the Award itself. Contrary to the assertions of the School District, the evidence in support of Ms. Cashdollar's claim has not changed. Rather, the same evidence must be considered in light of the parties' subsequently determined definition of a graduate level credit. It is therefore concluded that compliance with [Award I] requires a review of Ms. Cashdollar's education and pay records in conjunction with the jointly determined definition of a graduate level credit in order to determine Ms. Cashdollar's proper placement on the Salary Schedules.

R.R. 191a-92a (emphasis added).

The School District filed a petition to vacate Award III. On June 30, 2014, the trial court vacated the arbitration award, explaining:

[The Arbitrator] went into great detail setting forth the rationale for her conclusion in her [Award I] dated December 20, 2012, and we defer to her decision of that date, given the fact that while she retained jurisdiction as to the other "affected unit members," for compliance with the implementation of the award, she clearly held the [School] District did not violate its CBA in denying Cashdollar's claim that her credits should be counted as graduate level courses.

Trial ct. op. at 6. The trial court continued:

Once [the Arbitrator] issued her decision [Award I] as pertaining to Cashdollar, such decision became final and binding on the parties according to the terms of the CBA. While we agree that [the Arbitrator] retained jurisdiction as to the other parties in the suit for determination of their status pending further review, such was explicitly done in her Opinion and subsequent Award language; such was not the case with Cashdollar. Thus, [the Arbitrator] had no jurisdiction under the CBA to reopen her final determination as to Cashdollar.

Id. at 6-7. Union appealed to this Court.

On appeal,² Union argues that the trial court erred in vacating the Arbitrator's Award III without determining whether the award drew its essence from the CBA. The School District disagrees and asserts that the only issue this Court need consider is whether the trial court correctly concluded that the Arbitrator exceeded her jurisdiction in reconsidering Cashdollar's placement on the Master's +15 schedule. The School District argues that the trial court did not err because the Arbitrator explicitly relinquished jurisdiction over Cashdollar, and the CBA did not grant the Arbitrator authority to re-claim jurisdiction.

2 When reviewing an arbitration award, our standard of review is limited to considering whether the arbitrator's award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. Greater Latrobe Area School District v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, 615 A.2d 999, 1002 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).

We agree with the School District that the Arbitrator exceeded her jurisdiction. This issue was thoroughly analyzed and ably explained by the Honorable Robert L. Boyer, who determined that the Arbitrator clearly and unequivocally relinquished jurisdiction in regards to Cashdollar. As a result, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion. Valley Grove School District v. Valley Grove Education Association, PSEA/NEA, Court of Common Pleas of Venango County (CIV No. 1285-2013, filed June 30, 2014).³

3 We are constrained to rule in favor of the School District because its position is legally sound. It bears noting, however, that the School District has taken advantage of the language in Award I denying Cashdollar's placement on the Master's +15 schedule, knowing that the Arbitrator's analysis was rendered obsolete by subsequent events. The Arbitrator believed that Award I pertained only to the question of when teachers could earn qualifying Master's + credits. The Arbitrator had no way of knowing that when the parties sat down to hammer out the finer details, they would also dramatically change the types of courses that would be counted. The School District has seized upon the timing of these events to punish Cashdollar for being the figurehead of Union's grievance. It is unseemly. --------

/s/_________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER

AND NOW, this 21^st day of May, 2015, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County is AFFIRMED upon the opinion of the Honorable Robert L. Boyer in Valley Grove School District v. Valley Grove Education Association, PSEA/NEA, CIV No. 1285-2013 filed June 30, 2014.

/s/_________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge