Amador Valley Secondary Educators Assn. v. Newlin
| Decision Date | 12 January 1979 |
| Citation | 151 Cal.Rptr. 724,88 Cal.App.3d 254 |
| Parties | AMADOR VALLEY SECONDARY EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Bruce C. NEWLIN, Superintendent of Schools of the Amador Valley Joint Union High School Dist., et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 43564. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Keith V. Breon, Breon, Galgani & Godino, San Francisco, for defendants and appellants.
Frances R. Giambroni, Kevin W. Wheelwright, White, Giambroni & Walters, Oakland, for respondents.
Bruce C. Newlin, Superintendent of the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District (hereafter, the District), and others appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandate to compel them to raise the salaries of certain teachers.
Respondent teachers were all certified employees of the District for 1975-1976, under employment contracts that incorporated a schedule fixing salaries for that school year. The 1975-76 school year expired on June 30, 1976 (see Ed.Code, § 37200). Although the District reemployed respondents for the 1976-77 school year under a contract effective July 1, 1976, on July 1 the District governing board had not yet adopted a new salary schedule for 1976-77. The District and the Amador Valley Secondary Educators Association, the recognized exclusive representative of the certified employees, had been engaged in collective bargaining negotiations to establish a new 1976-77 salary schedule. Those negotiations lasted from March 1976 until at least January 1977. On July 19, 1976, the District board passed Resolution No. 1976-77.6, freezing the salaries of all certified employees, including respondents, for the 1976-77 school year at 1975-76 levels.
Under the 1975-76 salary schedule, every certified employee received a salary increase for each additional year of service with the District, up to 12 years. For example, in 1975-76 respondent Gary Poulos was classified in Step 5, Class II, earning $12,233 annually. Under the salary freeze, Poulos would earn the same amount in 1976-77. Applying the 1975-76 salary schedule in 1976-77, however, Poulos would have been classified Step 6, Class II, earning $12,728. Poulos, Jim Parrish and Barbara Zigenhals brought this action to compel the District to pay each of them, not at the frozen level, but at the level reflecting the additional year of service as determined by the 1975-76 salary schedule.
The 1975-76 salary schedule also provided for "class" or "column" increases based on units of study completed beyond the bachelor's degree. For example, in 1975-76 respondent Joann Swift was classified Step 7, Class V, earning $15,669 annually. Upon completion of approved study units during the summer of 1976, Swift became eligible for the Step 7, Class VI salary: $16,485. Before July 1, 1976, the District board had approved the study units of Swift, Ron Blanton and Jim Hollingsworth to be completed during the summer of 1976. Although these respondents completed the additional units, the District under the salary freeze refused to pay them class increases. Respondents sued to compel the District to pay the higher salaries.
This case raises the issue of whether a school board that unilaterally freezes salaries after the beginning of a new school year, while contract negotiations are pending, commits an unfair practice in violation of the Rodda Act (Gov.Code, §§ 3540-3549.3). (See Paterson & Romo, Teacher Salary Increments: The Problem of Good Faith Bargaining (1978) 37 California Public Employee Relations 21.) "The initial determination as to whether the charges of unfair practices are justified, and, if so, what remedy is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the (Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter PERB))." The PERB has the power and duty to "investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of this chapter, and take such action and make such determinations in respect of such charges or alleged violations as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of this chapter."
Where the unilateral actions of a school board arising from a labor dispute arguably give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Personnel Com. v. Barstow Unified School Dist.
...Unified School Dist. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 666, 670, 169 Cal.Rptr. 893, italics added; see also Amador Valley Secondary Educators Assn. v. Newlin (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 254, 257, 151 Cal.Rptr. 724.) In determining whether conduct in a given case could give rise to an unfair practice claim, a ......
-
Anderson v. California Faculty Assn.
...PERB had exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine whether the conduct was an unfair practice: Amador Valley Secondary Educators Assn. v. Newlin (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 254, 151 Cal.Rptr. 724 [school district salary freeze because of lack of salary agreement at start of school year]; Los Ang......
-
Doe v. Albany Unified Sch. Dist.
...exhaust administrative remedies before seeking a writ of mandate to compel agency action. ( Amador Valley Secondary Educators Assn. v. Newlin (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 254, 257, 151 Cal.Rptr. 724; Aebli v. Board of Education (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 706, 718, 145 P.2d 601.) "It is well settled as a ......
-
Fresno Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn.
...must be to PERB because the action of the school district was arguably an unfair practice. (Amador Valley Secondary Educators Assn. v. Newlin (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 254, 151 Cal.Rptr. 724.) The "initial determination" language of section 3541.5 was found to be Council of School Nurses v. Los ......