Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 315223.cor.pdf

preventing the union from proceeding with arbitration, which was granted. The district's

request for a preliminary injunction was heard on December 14. The trial court entered a

preliminary injunction and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

The union brings this appeal, making two assignments of error to the order

enjoining arbitration of Ms. Easterling's grievance. The first is that the court erred in

concluding that the grievance was not arbitrable, an asserted error of law. The second is

that the court did not properly balance the parties' interests in entering an injunction, an

abuse of discretion. We address the two issues in tum. 2

2 As a preliminary matter, the district points out that the union failed to assign
error as required by RAP 10.3 (g) to the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of
law. See CP at 410-11. "RAP 10.3 requires an appellant to present argument to the
reviewing court as to why specific findings of fact are in error and to support those
arguments with citation to relevant portions ofthe record." In re Disciplinary
Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451,466, 120 P.3d 550 (2005). However, "[a]n

6
             

No. 31522-3-III
Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass 'n

I. Arbitrability of Issues Raised by the Grievance

The union appeared to argue in its opening brief on appeal that the arbitrator,

rather than the trial court, should have determined the arbitrability of issues raised by the

grievance. Its reply brief clarifies its position: it agrees that arbitrability was an issue for

the court. At the same time, it emphasizes that while it is the court's job to determine