Grasko v. Los Angeles City Board of Education

• Decision Date: 26 March 1973
• Docket Number: TEACHERS-LOS
• Citation: 107 Cal.Rptr. 334,31 Cal.App.3d 290
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3098, 71 Lab.Cas. P 53,044 Natalie GRASKO and Lee Gill et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LOS ANGELES CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., and United Teachers of Los Angeles, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. Farrel T. MILES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UNITEDANGELES, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 38863, 40577.

Page 334

107 Cal.Rptr. 334

31 Cal.App.3d 290, 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3098,

71 Lab.Cas. P 53,044

Natalie GRASKO and Lee Gill et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LOS ANGELES CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., and United Teachers of Los Angeles, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Farrel T. MILES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UNITED TEACHERS-LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 38863, 40577.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

March 26, 1973.

Geffner & Satzman and Leo Geffner, Lawrence B. Trygstad, Donald W. O'Dell, Los Angeles, and Richard C. Anthony, Sacramento, for defendants and appellants United Teachers of Los Angeles, and others.

Roberts, Carmack & Johnson and John K. Carmack, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and respondents Natalie Grasko, and others, and Farrel T. Miles, and others.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Clarence H. Langstaff, Division Chief, and Allan B. McKittrick, Deputy County Counsel, amicus curiae on behalf of county of Los Angeles.

Robert H. Chanin, Gen. Counsel, National Education Association, amicus curiae on behalf of National Education Ass'n.

HERNDON, Associate Justice.

These cases present an appeal from a permanent injunction issued by the superior court enjoining the Los Angeles City Board of Education and the Negotiating Council, ¹ representing the city's teachers, from entering into the agreement which resulted from the negotiations that led to the settlement of the 1970 teachers' strike. By stipulation, the two cases have been consolidated on appeal, as they were for trial, since the relevant facts and the legal issues are identical.

The Facts

On April 13, 1970, approximately 12,000 of a total of approximately 25,000 certificated teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District went on strike. In spite of the efforts exerted by the parties involved, the strike continued for approximately four and one-half weeks until May 13, 1970. In an attempt to resolve the underlying disputes giving rise to the strike, the parties agreed to the appointment of a mediator, Professor Benjamin Aaron of the U.C.L.A. School of Industrial Relations, to assist them in mutually resolving their differences. After several unsuccessful attempts to assist the parties in resolving these matters, Professor Aaron announced that he intended to submit, and shortly thereafter did in fact prepare and issue, a proposed written agreement which he strongly and publicly urged the parties to adopt as a means of settling the strike.

Although the original amendment proposed by Professor Aaron proved unacceptable to the Board of Education, a majority of the Board (4 of the 7 members with 3 members dissenting) subsequently agreed to enter into a modified version of this written agreement with the Negotiating Council. This modified agreement resulted from negotiations by the representatives of the majority members of the Board and the Negotiating Council, which negotiations centered upon altering the proposed Aaron agreement to make it satisfactory to both parties.

Thereafter, in the cases of Grasko, et al. v. Los Angeles City Board of Education et al. and Miles, et al. v. United Teachers-Los Angeles, et al., consolidated for trial, the superior court, on May 21, 1970, issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the parties from entering into the proposed agreement. Whereupon, the Board of Education adopted a resolution indicating that '. . . in the event the legal restrictions presently restraining the Board of Education and Negotiating Council from signing the recently negotiated Agreement are removed, the Board of Education will sign the Agreement without further amendment or negotiations.'

After the parties had been so enjoined by the superior court from executing the proposed agreement, and apparently with the intent to implement the provisions of the proposed agreement by other means to the extent permissible, the Board of Education considered the adoption of 'Board Rule 3700.' This proposed Board Rule in large part parallels and otherwise includes the major substantive provisions of the proposed agreement. On May 28, 1970, in the case of Citizens Legal Defense Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, et al., the superior court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Board of Education from proceeding to adopt or implement the proposed Board Rule 3700.

After a lengthy trial on the merits, the trial court found, Inter alia, that '(i)n its decision to execute the contract, the Board of Education intended to establish a certain relationship with UTLA whereunder the Board of Education would share its powers, duties and responsibilities to manage, control and organize the school district with UTLA.' This was accomplished by recognition of the Negotiating Council as the bargaining agent for all certificated employees of the school district (except for administrative, supervisory, and medical personnel) and recognition of UTLA as the agent of the Negotiating Council. The agreement also covered matters of benefits, conditions of employment, a grievance and arbitration procedure, joint study committees, and other matters.

The court also found that except for the illegal teachers' strike, ² the Board of Education would not have agreed to enter into the agreement herein involved.

The court's conclusions of law reveal that the injunctions are based on several grounds: (1) the proposed agreement was the product of unlawful collective bargaining and an unlawful teachers' strike; (2) the proposed settlement is beyond the power of the Negotiating Council to execute or implement; (3) the proposed agreement is beyond the power of either the Board of Education or the school district to execute or implement. The reasoning underlying the latter two conclusions was expressed by the trial court thusly: 'The Negotiating Council may 'meet and confer' with the public school employer but such 'meet and confer' sessions cannot legally result in more than a unilateral determination by the public school employer of policy in the form of rules, regulations, policies or resolutions respecting the matters for which the 'meet and confer' sessions are held; which rules, regulations, policies or resolutions must be subject to modification at the pleasure of the Board of Education of the public school employer.'

The judgments enjoined the school district, Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools from recognizing either UTLA or the Negotiating Council as the sole bargaining agent for all teachers of the school district and from entering into the proposed agreement. UTLA was enjoined from holding itself out as the teachers' sole bargaining agent and from entering into the proposed agreement. Finally, the defendant members of the Negotiating Council, and their successors, were enjoined from holding themselves out as the teachers' sole bargaining agent, or recognizing UTLA as the sole bargaining agent, or entering into the proposed agreement.

Notice of appeal was seasonably filed by UTLA, the defendant members of the Negotiating Council, and the Board of Education. Thereafter, pursuant to a Board motion adopted by a 4--2 vote, the Board of Education abandoned its appeals in these cases and the companion case of Citizens Legal Defense Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, et al., 2nd Civil No. 38864. ³ A motion by the two dissenting members of the Board to reinstate these appeals and to permit them to prosecute the appeals in their individual capacity was denied by Division Four of this court on February 9, 1972.

Issues Presented

Appellants contend that the 'primary and fundamental question presented by this appeal is whether or not the Los Angeles City Board of Education and the Negotiating Council . . . may enter into the employment contract which contains understandings and agreements reached as a result of meeting and conferring pursuant to the Winton Act. . . .' Respondents contend that the original agreement creates a collective bargaining relationship, which, under the Winton Act (Ed.Code, §§ 13080--13088), is beyond the power of the school district or its Board, or the Negotiating Council, to enter into; that the agreement is replete with unlawful delegations of the Board's discretionary and legislative powers; and that the agreement is against public policy and supported by unlawful consideration in that it is a direct result of an illegal teachers' strike.

At the outset, it is imperative to focus precisely upon what is and what is not involved in the instant appeals. As indicated above, the judgments enjoined the Board of Education from recognizing UTLA or the Negotiating Council as the sole bargaining agent for all teachers and from entering into the proposed agreement. UTLA was enjoined from holding itself out as the teachers' sole bargaining agent and from entering into the proposed agreement and the Negotiating Council was enjoined from holding itself out as the sole bargaining agent, or recognizing UTLA as the sole bargaining agent, or entering into the proposed agreement. Appellants' arguments, as their own characterization of the question presented indicates, go solely to the question of whether the Board may, in the exercise of its own discretion, choose to enter into the proposed agreement. We perceive no challenge to those aspects of the injunctions prohibiting UTLA or the Negotiating Council from holding themselves out as the sole bargaining agent for the district's teachers. And, as explained in footnote 3, Supra, the legality of the proposed Board Rule 3700 is not presented in the instant appeal.

The Agreement Was Properly Enjoined As Contrary To Public Policy

The trial court found that had the illegal teachers' strike not occurred, the Board of Education would not have consented to enter into the agreement herein involved. Appellants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence...