Cal. Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of Salinas City Elementary Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 10 November 2010
• Docket Number: No. H033788.,H033788.
• Citation: 187 Cal.App.4th 81,113 Cal.Rptr.3d 523
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: 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.

187 Cal.App.4th 81

113 Cal.Rptr.3d 523

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.

No. H033788.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

July 14, 2010.

Review Granted Nov. 10, 2010.

Kay M. Tuttle, Ernest Hastings Tuttle III, Tuttle & McCloskey, Fresno, CA, forPlaintiffs and Appellants, California Teachers Association and Salinas Elementary Teachers Council.

George W. Shaeffer, Jr., Kevin V. Breon, Breon & Shaeffer, P.L.C., Irvine, CA, for Defendants and Respondents, Salinas City Elementary School District and Governing Board of the Salinas City Elementary School District.

MIHARA, J.

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 District's 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.

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, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 858 P.2d 568.)

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 training beyond a bachelor's degree. "Teachers are placed and paid on the salary scheduleaccording 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 District's "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 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 [SETC's] members according to Education Code § 45028," the unions filed suit. Their complaint prayed for an order compelling the District (1) to "reclassify each teacher on the salary schedule on the basis of [a] uniform allowance for ... years of experience and training," (2) to pay "back pay with prejudgment interest," and (3) to "calculate and pay the proper retirement contributions...." The complaint also sought a declaration that the District "violated Education Code section 45028 and the teachers' rights thereunder" by failing to classify teachers uniformly according to years of experience and training, and that it was required to pay teachers back pay with interest and make proper retirement contributions.

The District demurred to the complaint on two grounds: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction "because [the unions] failed to adequately plead they exhausted the [grievance/arbitration procedures] ⁴ in the... collective bargaining agreement," and (2) failure to state a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the first ground. "I agree with that position. I agree that the grievance procedure must be exhausted before seeking judicial review. So I'll sustain the demurrer without leave to amend." The case was dismissed, and the unions filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

[1][2][3][4][5] "In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules. 'We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.]' " ( Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58 ( Blank ).) "This consideration of facts includes those evidentiary facts found in recitals of exhibits attached to a complaint. [Citation.]" ( Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 365, 374, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 234 ( Satten ).) " 'We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.' [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.]" ( Blank, at p. 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) We "review the complaint de novo to determine ... whether or not the trial court erroneously sustained the demurrer as a matter of law. [Citation.]" ( Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, fn. omitted.)

[6][7] "[A] jurisdictional defense appearing on the face of the complaint, or based upon judicially noticeable facts, is appropriately addressed on demurrer. [Citation.]" ( Satten, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 374, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 234.) On appeal, " 'the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred.' [Citation.]" ( Zipperer v. County of Santa Clara (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1020, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 487.)

B. Exhaustion of Grievance/Arbitration Procedures

The unions insist they were not required to exhaust the grievance/arbitration procedures because their action sought to enforce a statute rather than "to enforce compliance with the collective bargaining agreement." The District disagrees, arguing that because the action "clearly involves a dispute or disagreement 'of any kind' " that arises out of or in some way involves " 'an alleged misinterpretation' or 'misapplication' " of the agreement, it falls within the definition of "grievance" and is therefore subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. The District contends the unions cannot circumvent the arbitration requirement in the grievance procedures by alleging a statutory violation. "[T]here certainly cannot be a law somewhere that says just because somebody alleges you violated the Education Code, you can ignore a ... failure to exhaust"internal grievance/arbitration procedures. We agree with the District's position.

[8][9][10] " 'It is the general rule that a party to a collective bargaining...