Parol Evidence Rule Clarification

Summary

In Illinois, the parol evidence rule restricts using external evidence to contradict clear contract terms. Judges enforce this strictly, while arbitrators may consider negotiation intent if terms are ambiguous. If a CBA term is unambiguous, its written terms should prevail. For specific contract interpretation issues, consulting a legal professional is advisable.

Full Conversation

I have a question about the parol evidence rule. I was told by our state union representative that “the parol evidence rule is applied strictly by judges in civil contract disputes while arbitrators are more lenient.” Yet our CBA has both an entire agreement clause and a clause limiting the power of the arbitrator. So I don’t see why he is saying this. The union is using negotiation intent to interpret the term “teaching assignment,” but the term is unambiguously defined elsewhere.
In Illinois, the parol evidence rule generally prevents parties from presenting evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict a written contract. However, arbitrators may consider additional evidence if it helps clarify ambiguous terms or the parties' intent.
- Judges apply the rule strictly to uphold the integrity of written contracts.
- Arbitrators have more flexibility to consider negotiation intent if it clarifies terms.
- Your CBA's entire agreement clause could limit this flexibility.
Is there a specific issue you're facing with this interpretation?
Yes. It denies members pay for a sixth teaching assignment. Based on the sidebar letter, a full time teaching assignment is “two blocked instructional periods one day and three the next.” But the union is saying that for the purpose of sixth teaching assignment compensation, the teacher must have six groups of students. These words do t appear in our CBA at all. They say negotiation intent tells them it was supposed to requires six groups of students. But if the clause is unclear, you would go to the rest of the document before negotiation intent.
It sounds like you're dealing with a contract interpretation issue. Here are some points to consider:
- The parol evidence rule in Illinois limits the use of outside evidence when a contract is clear.
- If the CBA is unambiguous, the written terms should prevail.
- Arbitrators might look at negotiation intent if they believe the term is ambiguous.

Have you considered discussing this with a legal professional who can review the CBA and provide specific advice?