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

17
             

No. 31522-3-111
Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass 'n

evaluation and decision not to renew her contract. In the case of this FMLA-related

issue, there is an additional reason why the trial court properly determined that it was

nonarbitrable: it is not contract-based and therefore does not qualify as a grievance.

After representing that Ms. Easterling gave her principal verbal notice of a family

health-related reason for her tardiness, the amended grievance stated only that

[a]s such, the District was under verbal notice of the need for Nikki, as the
parent of a severely asthmatic child, to receive some type of "reasonable
accommodation." [Ms. Easterling's principal] is ... responsible, under
such circumstances, to notify the district of the Grievant's unique issues
and work with the District compliance officer to establish an appropriate
reasonable accommodation for Nikki (and her daughter). At a minimum
the District should have notified the Grievant of her state and federal
FMLA rights.

CP at 154.

The amended grievance identified the contractual basis of "all of the ... listed

issues" as article IV, section 22; the evaluation portions of the CBA (article IV, section

20); and article VII (Grievance). CP at 154. On appeal, the union characterizes "[t]he

Family Leave issue" as "involv[ing] the supervisor failing to properly inform Ms.

Easterling of her rights under [FMLA]," which it claims was a violation of the CBA,

citing article V, sections 4 and 5. Reply Br. of Appellant at 15.

The union fails to identify any language in sections 4 and 5 of article V that is a

source of the district's ostensible FMLA-related duty to notify Ms. Easterling of her