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

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 315223.cor.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/315223.cor.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,541 chars

This is not a "free floating" duty, unattached to an existing contract; rather, it exists only

20
             

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

in relation to performance of specific contract terms. Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox

Corp., 152 Wn.2d 171,177,94 P.3d 945 (2004) (if no specific contractual duty exists,

there is nothing that must be performed in good faith).

The district had no duty to arbitrate matters that it had not agreed to arbitrate under

the CBA. Because it had no duty to arbitrate, it could not have breached its duty of good

faith by standing by its contractual rights.

II. Exercise of Discretion in Granting Preliminary Injunction

The union makes a second argument that the trial court failed to engage in a

required balancing of interests in granting the preliminary injunction. In this case, the

district pursued relief under chapter 7.40 RCW, dealing with injunctions, rather than

moving to stay arbitration under the uniform arbitration act, chapter 7.04A RCW, which

bases the stay decision on the pure issue of whether an issue is arbitrable rather than on

additional considerations that come into play under the more broadly applied injunction

provisions. See RCW 7.04A.070(2). Because the district proceeded under chapter 7.40

RCW, we review the standards applied in granting injunctive relief under that chapter.

The showing required for issuance of a preliminary injunction is well settled: