Facts: Professor Acevedo was a professor working at
Massachusetts Community College under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
CBA provided the basis for annual evaluation of tenured and non-tenured
faculty. He had applied for tenure, but was denied and notified that he would
instead receive a terminal contract. The reasons for the denial was based on
high withdrawal rates from his class, student evaluations and other opinions
that his “level of teacher effectiveness does not meet College expectations for
teaching excellence.” Article X of CBA allowed the association to initiate
arbitration for grievances and provided that the decision or award of the
arbitrator shall be final and binding but was qualified by another provision
stating that the granting or failure to grant tenure shall be arbitrable, but
any award is not binding. Acevedo filed a grievance to an arbitrator and the
arbitrator ruled in Acevedo’s favor, concluding that the tenure process was
unreasonable, arbitrary and violated the contract. College appealed to court,
but was denied. The arbitrator voided the original tenure decision and ordered
Acevedo’s reinstatement.
Issue: Whether the college is bound by the arbitrator’s
award, which effectively overturned its denial of tenure to Acevedo.
No. Although a public college may bind itself to follow
certain procedures with respect to decisions committed to its exclusive
authority. However the college did not bind itself to a certain procedure
because the contract specifically states “the granting or failure to grant
tenure shall be arbitrable but any award is not binding.” Although the judge
differentiated between “substantial” and “procedural” tenure awards and states
that because the award addressed procedural issues it was binding, the clear
language of the contract does not make this distinction and to bind the award
would render the contract language meaningless. (ML)
