THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATOR,
v.
HON. ROBERT B. MCGREGOR, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND LYNETTE T. CORNELISON, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 5th DCA | 1980-04-23
No. 80-327
CROSS and UPCHURCH, JJ., coneür.
383 So. 2d 694 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The School Board of Seminole County sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial judge from referring an arbitration award back to the arbitrator for clarification of back-pay calculations owed to a non-tenured teacher. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that the trial judge had authority to remand the matter for calculation of the specific amounts due under the arbitrator's guidelines.


Holding

The trial court has clear authority and discretion to refer the matter back to the arbitrator to determine the amount of back-pay due the teacher under section 682.10, Florida Statutes, when motions under sections 682.12, 682.13, and 682.14 have been filed. The award's guidelines should be clarified through calculation by the arbitrator while the balance of the award should be confirmed and enforced.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court has the authority and discretion to refer an arbitration award back to the arbitrator for correction or clarification when motions to vacate or modify the a…

[2] A trial court may direct arbitrators to clarify an award when the award sets forth guidelines but not specific amounts due.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Because motions had been made under Sections 682.12, 682.13 and 682.14, the trial court clearly has the authority and discretion to take this proposed action”

Establishes the legal basis for the trial court's authority to remand the arbitration award for clarification

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The School Board and teacher Lynette T. Cornelison were required to arbitrate a grievance concerning the teacher's right to reemployment and alleged v…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
SHARP, Judge.

SHARP, Judge.

The School Board of Seminole County petitions this court for a writ of prohibition against the Hon. Robert B. McGregor, the trial judge, to prevent him from referring a matter back to the arbitrator, pursuant to Section 682.10, Florida Statutes (1979), for correction or clarification of an arbitrator’s award for back-pay due to the respondent, Lynette T. Cornelison, a teacher. We deny the petition.

The School Board was required to arbitrate this teacher’s grievance by the trial court’s order entered on March 1977. The matter concerned the teacher’s right to reemployment although she did not have tenure status, the violation as to this teacher of the School Board’s collective bargaining agreement during the 1975-76 school year, and other remedies. The matter was arbitrated on June 23, 1977; the final rebuttal briefs were filed August 17, 1977; and the arbitrator’s award issued on approximately September 15, 1977. The arbitrator found the School Board violated its agreement with the teacher; he required that she be reinstated on an annual contract basis “as soon as possible” at a salary applicable for the 1976-1977 school year; and he awarded her back-pay for the 1976-1977 school year, less any earnings she had from any source during that period.

Both the School Board and the teacher filed petitions to vacate and to modify the award pursuant to Sections 682.12, 682.13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court held hearings on these matters on March 14, 1979, January 23, 1980, and March 17, 1980. He indicated he intended to confirm the award, but intended to refer the matter back to the arbitrator to determine the amount of back-pay due the teacher

. Because motions had been made under Sections 682.12, 682.13 and 682.14, the trial court clearly has the authority and discretion to take this proposed action2.

The award in this case set forth guidelines, but not the actual amounts due the teacher. This should be simply and expeditiously handled within a short time period; and the reference should specify the calculations to be made by the arbitrator. The .balance of the award should be confirmed and enforced.

This case illustrates poignantly the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied.” The teacher received her “injury” in the 1975-1976 school year. In 1977 she was awarded back-pay and reinstatement, but she has received neither at this point. The “remedy” of reinstatement at the 1976-1977 salary schedule, with the ravages of inflation and devaluation of the dollar, may soon prove inadequate, and an “honor” she can no longer afford. We urge a speedy resolution of this matter. PETITION DENIED.

CROSS and UPCHURCH, JJ., coneür. . The petition filed is technically deficient because it does not comply with Rule 9.100(e) Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure — requiring attachment of an appendix pursuant to Rule 9.220 — which in turn requires attachment of a conformed copy of the court’s order to be reviewed. It fails to do so in this case because no order or reference to the arbitrator has yet been entered by the trial judge. The petition, however, is not being denied on that basis alone and this opinion is being written to expedite the proceedings.

. Florida Statutes § 682.10 provides that: on application of a party to the arbitration, or if an application to the court is pending under §§ 682.12, 682.13, or 682.14, on submission to the arbitrators ... by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators . . . may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in § 682.-14(1)(a) and (c) or for the purpose of clarifying the award.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …... by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators ... may modify or correct the award for purposes of clarifying the award....'' 4 Fla. Jur.2d Arbitration and Award § 77 (1994); School Bd. of Seminole County v. McGregor, 383 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (trial court has authority to refer matter back to arbitrator upon 682.13 motion); Ainsworth v. Skurnick, 909 F. 2d 456, 457 (11th Cir.1990) ("When an arbitration award can be interpreted in a variety of ways, it is normal t…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw