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

union characterizes as "distinct" from nonrenewal fall. North Beach is inapposite.

We tum to the matters the union sought to grieve on behalf of Ms. Easterling that

it contends are distinct from evaluation and nonrenewal.

11
             

No. 3 I 522-3-II1
Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass 'n

1. Progressive Discipline

The union asserts that the district failed to employ progressive discipline in its

dealings with Ms. Easterling as required by the CBA. Section 22(A) of the CBA

provides:

The District has the right to discipline, suspend, or dismiss for just cause.
Prior to instituting progressive discipline steps, the District will have made
a reasonable attempt to counsel with the employee and to clarify job
expectations.

CP at 90. In its initial grievance the union asserted that "[t]he attempt to non-renew the

Grievant is in violation of Article IV, Section 22, the Evaluation portions of the CBA."

CP at 279. In its amended grievance, it asserts that

[d]uring the informal grievance meeting, several emails and two
memos were brought forward by the District which attempted to deny that
the non-renewal was for retaliatory reasons. The difficulty is that none of
these emails (or memos) dealt with the issues brought forward in the proper
manner. In other words, problems with the performance ofthe Grievant
should have utilized the Evaluation system . .. and any discipline should
have been dealt with through Article IV, Section 22.

CP at 153 (emphasis added).

The union argues that if we do not recognize the distinct character of pre­

nonrenewal matters such as Ms. Thomas's asserted failure to counsel Ms. Easterling and