the district sought a

permanent stay of the grievance arbitration proceedings that had

been commenced in the DLR, on the ground that the association's

demand was not arbitrable.   The Superior Court issued an order,

dated September 7, 2016, allowing the district's application to

stay the grievance arbitration, and finding that, in the

circumstances of this case, the association had no right to

grievance arbitration under the CBA and that its remedy existed

exclusively in statute.    Shortly thereafter, because the matter

was pending in the Superior Court, the association sought and

obtained a temporary administrative closure of the grievance

arbitration proceedings.

    The district then notified the DLR of the court's order

staying the arbitration proceedings and requested the dismissal

of the arbitration proceeding.   The association filed an

opposition to the requested dismissal.                                                      12


     Moreover, the teacher here was an employee at will, had no

statutory due process rights controlling his termination from

employment, and had been terminated from employment before the

association filed the grievance alleging violation of the CBA's

evaluation requirements.     At the time that the association filed

the grievance on behalf of the teacher, Suglia was no longer

employed by the district.    He had been terminated pursuant to

the provisions of