One defined term in the agreement decided where the suspension and firing could be heard
A union tried to force Benton County into arbitration over a worker's suspension and firing. Washington's appeals court just said no.
The July 7, 2026 decision turned on a question familiar to anyone running a unionized workforce: which disputes go to arbitration, and which do not.
Teamsters Local 839 represents employees in the Benton County sheriff's office. In February 2023, the county suspended a clerical employee in that office for 24 hours without pay. Three months later, the employee was terminated. The union filed two disputes on the worker's behalf - one over the suspension, one over the firing - arguing the county had broken the collective bargaining agreement, or CBA, the contract that sets the ground rules between the two sides.
The union leaned on two provisions. Section 9.5 requires the county to apply work rules uniformly. Section 25.5 lets the county discipline workers for "just cause." After the county denied both grievances, the union moved to push them to final and binding arbitration. The county refused even to help select an arbitrator.
Its position was simple: the contract carves discipline out of the grievance process. Section 21.2 defines a grievance as a dispute over the agreement "except for actions of a disciplinary nature." Discipline, the county argued, could only be reviewed by the Benton County Civil Service Commission - not an arbitrator.
The union sued to compel arbitration, and the trial court did something unusual. Instead of deciding whether the dispute belonged in arbitration, it sent the case to arbitration and left that threshold question for the arbitrator.
The Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three, reversed. Deciding whether a dispute is arbitrable is the court's duty, not the arbitrator's, the panel held. On the substance, it saw no ambiguity: because the CBA expressly excluded disciplinary actions from the grievance definition, the suspension and termination were never arbitrable. They belonged with the Civil Service Commission.
The court set the case apart from an earlier Washington decision, Yakima County Law Enforcement Officers Guild, where a similarly built contract defined grievance broadly, with no carve-out. That gap had created ambiguity and favored arbitration. Here, the explicit exclusion left "only one reasonable meaning."
For HR and labor relations leaders, the lesson is about drafting. A single defined term - what counts as a "grievance" - decided where these disputes could be heard. An express exclusion held up; a broad, unqualified definition would likely have sent the same facts to an arbitrator.
The court denied the county's request for attorney fees, since it never explained the basis, and sent the case back down. The ruling settles where the dispute can be heard - not the merits of the suspension and termination, which still run through the civil service process.
