Galbreath v. School Bd. of Broward County
1984 Fla. LEXIS 2565, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2645, 446 So. 2d 1045 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A certified bargaining agent that has exclusive contractual control over the arbitration step of a grievance procedure may refuse to take a grievance to arbitration if it believes in good faith that the grievance lacks merit. A public employer is not obligated to arbitrate with an individual employee when the union has made such a determination based on the merits of the grievance.
Facts:
- Ruel Galbreath, a public school teacher in Broward County, was not a member of the Broward County Classroom Teachers Association (the union).
- The School Board of Broward County and the union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that established a three-step grievance procedure and covered all teachers, including Galbreath.
- Galbreath filed a grievance under the agreement to secure payment for overtime work.
- The union represented Galbreath through the first two steps of the grievance procedure.
- The union determined that Galbreath's grievance lacked merit and refused to process it to the final step, binding arbitration.
- The union's decision was based on the merits of the grievance, not on Galbreath's non-union status.
- Galbreath then individually demanded that the School Board proceed to arbitration, but the School Board refused, citing the union's exclusive control over the arbitration step in the collective bargaining agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruel Galbreath filed unfair labor practice charges against the School Board of Broward County and the Broward County Classroom Teachers Association with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC).
- PERC summarily dismissed Galbreath's charges.
- Galbreath appealed PERC's dismissal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed PERC's dismissal but certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public employer have an obligation to arbitrate a grievance with an individual employee when the certified bargaining agent, which has exclusive contractual control over arbitration, has declined to process the grievance to arbitration because it believes the grievance lacks merit?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McDonald
No, a public employer is not obligated to arbitrate a grievance with an individual employee when the union, acting as the exclusive bargaining agent, determines in good faith that the grievance lacks merit and declines to proceed. The court holds that a union's right to exclusivity in administering a collective bargaining agreement includes the right to screen grievances and decline to process those it believes are without merit. Allowing individual employees to compel arbitration would undermine the union's status as the exclusive representative, lead to 'individual negotiations' that are destructive to the collective bargaining system, and waste public funds on potentially frivolous claims. The court distinguished this situation from one where a union refuses to represent an employee solely because of non-membership status, which is prohibited by statute. Because the union's decision was based on the merits, its role as the gatekeeper to arbitration is upheld, consistent with federal labor law principles from cases like Vaca v. Sipes.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of a certified bargaining agent as the exclusive gatekeeper to the arbitration process in Florida's public sector. It clarifies that an individual employee does not have an unfettered right to compel arbitration for a grievance the union deems meritless, thereby strengthening the union's role in managing the collective bargaining agreement. The ruling prevents employers from being forced into numerous individual arbitrations and promotes stability by ensuring a single, consistent interpretation of the labor contract. Future cases involving an employee's right to arbitrate will hinge on whether the union's refusal was a good-faith assessment of the grievance's merits or a breach of its duty of fair representation, such as discriminating based on non-union status.
