California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. 7/14/10 CA6

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. 7/14/10 CA6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: H033788

Case Date: 11/12/2010

Preview:Filed 7/14/10; pub. order 7/30/10 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND SALINAS ELEMENTARY TEACHERS COUNCIL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SALINAS CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

H033788 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. M91905)

Plaintiffs California Teachers Association (CTA) and the Salinas Elementary Teachers Council (SETC) (collectively, the unions) brought an action against defendants Governing Board of the Salinas City Elementary School District and the Salinas City Elementary School District (collectively, the District). The action alleged that the Districts interpretation of the parties collective bargaining agreement created teacher pay disparities in violation of Education Code section 45028,1 and that contract language freezing advancement for some but not all teachers for the 2005-2006 school year created additional salary uniformity violations. The District demurred on the ground the court lacked jurisdiction because the unions had not adequately pleaded exhaustion of the administrative remedy specified in the collective bargaining agreement. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.
1

Further statutory references are to the Education Code unless otherwise noted.

On appeal, the unions claim the sustaining of the demurrer was error.2 They contend that (1) "case law is clear that even though a salary schedule is negotiated and is a part of the collective bargaining agreement . . . , the Superior Court still has . . . jurisdiction to determine whether the salary schedule or the implementation violated . . . section 45028;" and (2) they "had no adequate or available administrative remedy to exhaust." We conclude the demurrer was properly sustained, and we affirm the judgment.

I. Background As this case comes to us after the sustaining of a demurrer, we accept as true all properly pleaded material allegations in the unions verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief (the complaint). (Mirkin v. Wasserman (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1082, 1087.) CTA is an employee organization that represents its members "in all matters relating to their employment." SETC is a local chapter of CTA. SETC is "the exclusive representative employee organization for the credentialed employees of [the] District." The District has "jurisdiction and control over the employment, status, classification and salary of [the unions] members who are certificated employees of the District." SETC and the District are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that was in effect at all times relevant to their dispute. A negotiated salary schedule is a part of that agreement.3 The schedule is in the form of a grid, with 22 horizontal rows or "step[s]" representing years of teaching experience and six vertical columns representing hours of

2

The unions have never argued that amendment of the complaint would cure their failure to allege exhaustion.
3

A copy of the salary schedule in effect for the 2001-2002 through 2005-2006 school years was attached as an exhibit to the complaint. A copy of the salary schedule in effect for the 2006-2007 school year was also attached. 2

training beyond a bachelors degree. "Teachers are placed and paid on the salary schedule according to their years of teaching experience (service) and education (training)." As teachers gain years of service, they progress vertically on the schedule, earning salary increases called "step" increases. As they acquire training credits, they progress horizontally on the schedule, earning salary increases called " ,,class " or " ,,column " increases. "Salary placement on [the schedule] was based solely on years of training and years of experience." As respects advancements, however, "[t]he District . . . interpreted th[e] agreement for many years to limit . . . advancements . . . to one step and one column per year." Additionally, "in the 2005-06 school year the District [negotiated contract language that] froze the advancement . . . for teachers on steps 1 through 11 but permitted teachers on steps 12, 14 and 18 to advance . . . . This action had the effect of creating additional salary uniformity violations." The Districts "failure to classify teachers on a uniform basis has caused . . . a disparity in . . . salaries, in that numerous teachers with the same experience and training are being paid at different rates in violation of their rights under the Education Code." The collective bargaining agreement includes a five-step grievance resolution process that culminates in binding arbitration if the grievance is not resolved at an earlier step. A "grievance" is "a written claim by a grievant that a controversy, dispute or disagreement of any kind exists arising out of or in some way involving an alleged misinterpretation, misapplication, or violation of this [collective bargaining] agreement." A "grievant" is "[a]n employee or group of employees or SETC, provided an employee(s) has been adversely affected." In April 2008, SETC met with District officials. In a letter sent the day after that meeting, SETC told the District, "As stated in our . . . meeting, it has come to [our] attention that the method agreed to by the District and SETC to advance our bargaining unit members on the salary schedule is in effect, illegal" because "[o]ur members are not 3

advancing on the salary schedule as stipulated in . . . Education Code Section 45028." The letter demanded that the District "take immediate action to determine which bargaining unit members are in need of a salary correction and take the appropriate actions to compensate these bargaining unit members." It concluded, "We look forward to receiving your response at our next scheduled meeting . . . ." After the District "wrongfully failed and refused . . . to reclassify [SETCs] members according to Education Code

Download California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. 7/14/10 CA6.pdf