PHILLIP FREDERICKS AND THE MONROE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ARMANDO HENRIQUEZ, APPELLEES
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.
A teacher and his union sought to compel a school board to proceed to arbitration as the final step of its published five-level grievance procedure. The court held that once a school board adopts a grievance procedure and processes an employee through the first four levels, the employee has a right to the fifth level (arbitration), and the union has standing to enforce that right on behalf of its members.
Yes on both counts. Fredericks is entitled to invoke level five (arbitration) as a matter of law because the school board adopted the grievance procedure, processed his grievance through levels one through four, and must therefore fully comply with its own published rules. The Monroe Education Association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members to enforce rights conferred by their employment relationship.
[1] A public agency is bound to scrupulously observe its own rules and policies.
[2] A party who has invoked a grievance procedure and proceeded through multiple levels is entitled to exhaust the entire procedure, including arbitration.
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“As a public agency, the School Board is bound to fully comply with its own rules and policies.”
Establishes that a school board cannot circumvent its own published grievance procedures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillip Fredericks, a probationary (non-tenured) teacher employed for two years by the Monroe County school system, received notice that his contract …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Grievance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the circuit court denying the motion of the plaintiffs, Phillip Fredericks and The Monroe Education Association, for entry of a partial summary judgment and dismissing Count II of the complaint based upon an asserted lack of standing of the plaintiff, The Monroe Education Association.
The complaint seeks to compel the appel-lee, The School Board of Monroe County, Florida, to exhaust the grievance procedure it adopted and to submit Fredericks’ grievance to an advisory arbitrator. Both Fredericks and The Monroe Education As sociation moved for partial summary judgment on the question of entitlement to arbitration. The court asserted that The Monroe Education Association lacks standing to seek enforcement of the grievance procedure on behalf of Fredericks, dismissed that portion of the complaint seeking such relief and declined to grant relief to the individual plaintiff.
Fredericks has been employed as a teacher in the Monroe County school system for two years. He is classified a probationary teacher since his contract is non-continuing in nature, and he must be reappointed each year. On June 7, 1973, Fredericks and The Monroe Education Association, acting on his behalf, initiated a formal written grievance stemming from notice that his contract would not be renewed.
The District School Board of Monroe County has a five-level grievance procedure, the fifth and final administrative level of which is arbitration. Fredericks proceeded through the first four steps, all resulting in adverse decisions. The Board then denied Fredericks arbitration, whereupon he and The Monroe Education Association initiated the instant litigation to compel arbitration.
The appellants contend that the court erred in not granting the partial summary judgment because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Fredericks’ entitlement to arbitration as a part of the grievance procedure, and further that the court erred in dismissing Count II because The Monroe Education Association does have standing to represent Fredericks in this litigation.
The appellee contends that there are material issues of fact as to Fredericks’ entitlement to arbitration, such as his status as a non-tenured teacher and his alleged failure to comply with time limits, and that dismissal of Count II was proper because The Monroe Education Association has no standing due to an absence of any indication that Fredericks is even a member. The record on appeal reflects that the District School Board of Monroe County, has published its prescribed grievance procedure in printed form, setting out specifically the purpose,1 definitions,2 policies,3 informal procedure and formal procedure.4 We first approach the question of whether it was error to deny partial summary judgment in favor of Fredericks as to his entitlement to he accorded the entire grievance procedure, including arbitration, the fifth level. The appellee’s arguments that (1) the plaintiffs have not alleged that Fredericks is a member of the Association and that (2) Fredericks failed to timely comply with procedural requirements, are without merit. It is clear from the very adoption of the grievance procedure itself, and from the fact that Fredericks was granted the first four procedural steps, that he is entitled to the fifth, i. e., arbitration, as well.
As a public agency, the School Board is bound to fully comply with its own rules and policies. See Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012, wherein the late Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in discussing the attempted dismissal of an employee of a governmental agency, states that administrative procedures are to be “scrupulously observed.” Fredericks’ grievance was processed through the first four levels, a fortiori, his right to invoke the fifth level is without question. Having invoked the grievance procedure, both parties are obligated to exhaust it. See Merkle v. Rice Construction Company, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 220. The court should have determined as a matter of law that Fredericks was entitled to invoke level five of the grievance procedure. “It is elementary that a trial judge has the power to decide the question of law on a motion for summary judgment where basic facts are clear and undisputed.” Beverage Canners, Inc. v. E. D. Green Corporation, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 239, 240.
We next approach the question of whether The Monroe Education Association has standing to file and participate as a party-plaintiff to this litigation. There is no doubt that the Association may assist by providing legal reperesentation and representing Fredericks at and during the administrative levels of the grievance procedure. However, there is also authority for the proposition that labor organizations do have standing to seek the enforcement of rights conferred upon employees by reason of their employment relationship, by bringing suit on behalf of their members. Cannery, Citrus, Drivers, Ware-housemen and Allied Employees of Local 444 v. Winter Haven Hospital, Inc., Fla.1973, 279 So. 2d 23. We find from careful review of the pleadings, the record and the District School Board of Monroe County Grievance Procedure that the Monroe Education Association had standing to bring suit on behalf of Fredericks, and, therefore, it was reversible error for the court to dismiss Count II of the complaint.
For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to reinstate Count II of the complaint, and to grant partial summary judgment as to the issue of entitlement to arbitration.
Reversed and remanded.
. “DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OP MONROE COUNTY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
I.Purpose:
The purpose of this procedure is to secure, at the lowest possible administrative level, equitable solutions to the problems which may arise affecting the welfare or working conditions of educators. The proceedings will be kept as informal and confidential as appropriate at any level of this procedure.”
. “II. Definitions:
1. The ‘Board’ is the District School Board of Monroe County.
2. The ‘parties at interest’ are those persons making the claim and those persons who might be required to take action or against whom action might be taken in order to resolve the claim.
3. The ‘Association’ is the Monroe Education Association.
4. A ‘grievance’ is a claim based upon an event or condition which affects the welfare and/or terms and conditions of employment of an educator or group of educators and/or the interpretation, meaning or application of any of the provisions of Board Policy.
5.‘Days’ shall mean regular working days within the twelve month school calendar and when all parties at interest are available.”
. III. Policies:
A. Failure to follow the grievance procedures outlined herein, may result in the Association filing formal charges with the Professional Practices Commission.
B. Assistance in following this procedure will be available to all instructional employees of the District School Board of Monroe County.
C. In the event that the Grievance Committee shall not have elected to submit a grievance, the aggrieved may submit his grievance independently by following the procedures outlined herein, however, the Grievance Committee shall have the right to be present and to state its views at all stages of the procedure. . . . ”
. “V. Formal Grievance Procedure
E. Level Five — Arbitration
E. (sic) Level Six — Judicial Action
In the event that the grievance is not satisfactorily resolved after presentation to the Board, the Grievance Committee may recommend to the Executive Board of the Association that legal action be pursued.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Fraternal Order OF Police Lodge NO. 20 OF the City OF Miami, 378 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…d final and binding — apply the exhaustion doctrine to the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements such as the one involved in this case. See Koenig v. Tyler, 360 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fredericks v. School Board of Monroe County, 307 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Heath v. Central Truck Lines, Inc., 195 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Jacksonville Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Association v. Local 435, Sheet Metal Workers’ Int'l. Assoc. of Jacksonville, 156 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 196…
-
Miami Ass'n OF Firefighters Local 587 of the Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters of Miami v. The City OF Miami, 87 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…relief sought.” City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 378 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); accord., Kaufman v. Machiedo, 357 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Koenig v. Tyler, 360 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fredericks v. Sch. Bd. of Monroe Cty., 307 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Jacksonville Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Ass’n v. Local Union No. 435, 156 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). As held by the Supreme Court in Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580 (196…
-
Soto v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Hernando Cnty., 716 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…607 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1992). Where a governmental agency provides that employee disputes shall be resolved through a grievance process, the agency is bound to fully comply with its own rules and policies. Fredericks v. School Board of Monroe County, 307 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The Board in this case provided in the County’s personnel guideline that a grievance may be filed concerning “Any presumed violation of the personnel [*865] regulation and guidelines as adopted by the Board of County Commissioner…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1959)
- Merkle v. Rice Constr. Co., 271 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Cannery v. Winter Haven Hosp., Inc., 279 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1973)
- Bev. Canners, Inc. v. E. D. Green Corp. & Ingersoll-Rand Co., 276 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)