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

clarify job expectations, then the district may violate the CBA during a provisional

employment period and avoid any duty to account by serving a notice of nonrenewal that

cuts off grievance rights. It poses the rhetorical question: "[I]fthe nonrenewal had not

12
             

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

been issued, would the matters listed in the grievance by [the union] be subject to the

CBA and arbitration? [The union] believes the resounding answer would be yes." Reply

Br. of Appellant at 4.

We agree that the answer to the union's rhetorical question would be yes. But had

Ms. Easterling grieved perceived violations of the progressive discipline requirement

absent any notice ofnonrenewal, she would have been seeking a different remedy, such

as additional counseling, clarification, or correction ..An earlier grievance, seeking that

different sort of redress, would not implicate the parties' clear, negotiated agreement that

evaluation and nonrenewal decisions were not arbitrable.

The problem with the union's position is that it is precisely because the

nonrenewal did issue, and because it is the nonrenewal development that she is seeking to

avoid, that Ms. Easterling's grievance necessarily implicates the district's nonarbitrable

evaluation and nonrenewal decisions and thereby falls within the CBA' s exclusion of

those matters from arbitration.

We can conceive of a nonrenewed employee having a grievable issue that is truly

distinct from nonrenewal, in the sense that the remedy being pursued is not relief from

the nonrenewal decision. A district's failure to pay accrued vacation pay would be an