No PELRB jurisdiction over grievance when collective bargaining agreement makes school board decision final and binding upon the parties

The petitioner Silverstein was a teacher covered by a collective bargaining agreement. When the school district reduced his weekly hours and pay and increased his costs for health insurance, Silverstein initiated a grievance to protest the reduction. The grievance procedure consisted of three separate steps, and the final step (a hearing before the school board) was “final and binding” upon the parties. Silverstein filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB). The PELRB dismissed the complaint, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim in light of the “final and binding” nature of the grievance process in the contract. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.Upon appeal, Silverstein argued that the PELRB does have jurisdiction over unfair labor practice complaints in any case where the collective bargaining agreement does not provide for final and binding arbitration before a disinterested third party. He also claimed that such a right to a hearing is constitutionally based. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments. The Court found that the grievance process was negotiated and agreed upon by the parties, and thus bound both the employee and the employer. The Court held that there was no constitutionally based right to a hearing before a third party when the process internal to the contract itself complied with basic notions of fairness and due process. Thus, the teacher was bound by the result of the three-step process. The PELRB only has jurisdiction to deal with unfair labor practice complaints arising out of the operation of a collective bargaining agreement when the agreement itself does not provide for a process that is final and binding upon the parties.