Mayer v. Board of Trustees
| Decision Date | 03 June 1980 |
| Citation | 106 Cal.App.3d 476,165 Cal.Rptr. 655 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Roger MAYER and Robin King, Petitioners and Respondents, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the LOS ALAMITOS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant. Civ. 21362. |
In this case we are called upon to decide the narrow and singular question of whether action taken to implement a particular school teachers' professional competence, pay-incentive provision in a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the trustees of the Los Alamitos School District, respondent below, and the Los Alamitos Education Association, the collective bargaining exclusive representative (Gov. Code, § 3540.1, subd. (e)) for the teachers of the district, violates present section 45028 of the Education Code, after its amendment as former section 13506 in 1969, and thus whether, because of such asserted violation, the district can be mandated to cease enforcing the challenged provisions of the agreement so implemented. 1
In pertinent part, section 45028 provides that "each person employed by a district in a position requiring certification qualifications (i. e., a teacher) . . . shall be classified on the salary schedule on the basis of uniform allowance for years of training and years of experience." Petitioners below and respondents here are teachers employed by the school district.
After March 7, 1977, and during the principal periods of employment here involved, teachers' salaries in the district were governed by the agreement noted. Under the terms of this agreement a teacher's salary is determined by reference to a schedule which places a teacher on a certain step vertically corresponding to his or her years of experience as a teacher, and in a certain column horizontally reflecting his or her academic attainment. 2 A newly-hired teacher is granted credit for a maximum of five years of teaching experience accumulated in a different school district regardless of how many years over five that such experience represented. Also, a teacher at the highest step, i. e., step 12, in column E is eligible to receive an "anniversary" incremental increase in salary every five years as indicated on the schedule. Only teachers employed by the district before March 1, 1964, are eligible to receive an anniversary incremental increase while remaining in another column, i. e., in column C or D, on the schedule.
Otherwise, the collective bargaining agreement provides that at the end of each school year a teacher shall be advanced to the next step on the salary schedule provided he or she has received a satisfactory performance rating. 3 If the rating is unsatisfactory, the teacher is denied a salary increase for the ensuing year.
The performance rating is accomplished on a form filled out each year by the principal at the school where the teacher is assigned. On this form the principal evaluates the teacher's performance in seven areas: (1) professional attributes, attitudes and conduct; (2) professional relationships with pupils, parents and colleagues; (3) professional skills; (4) preparation and planning; (5) learning environment; (6) related professional activities (e. g., PTA, intramural coaching, professional associations); and (7) pupil progress. The principal rates the teacher as satisfactory or unsatisfactory in each area. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, that evaluation is not reviewable. 4 As noted, if the teacher is rated as unsatisfactory in any area, he or she is denied a salary increase for the ensuing year.
1 In 1975, petitioner Mayer, who taught grades five and six, received the salary consistent with step 2 of column D of the salary schedule. During the 1975-1976 school year he was rated unsatisfactory in area (1): professional attributes, attitudes and conduct. The principal concluded that Mayer had failed to demonstrate appropriate professional judgment and occasionally had engaged in emotional outbursts. As a consequence of this rating, Mayer was not advanced to step 3 in column D on the salary schedule. 5
At the end of the 1976-1977 school year, Mayer again received an unsatisfactory performance rating, this time in area (3): professional skills; area (4): preparation and planning; as well as (1): professional attributes, attitudes and conduct. The principal stated that Mayer lacked maturity, had failed to teach all areas of the curriculum, had not understood the subject matter and content areas in which he was teaching, had failed to follow district policy in his manner of teaching certain subjects, and had not maintained adequate records of pupil progress. Thus, Mayer remained again at step 2 in column D of the salary schedule for the school year 1977-1978.
The following year, Mayer was transferred to a different elementary school. At the end of that year, he received a satisfactory performance rating and advanced to step 3 in column D on the salary schedule.
Petitioner King, who taught instrumental music at the junior high school level, had advanced to step 12 of column E on the salary schedule. He was expecting to receive his first anniversary incremental salary increase at the end of the 1976-1977 school year. However, during that year, King was rated as unsatisfactory in area (1): professional attributes, attitudes and conduct; (3): professional skills; and (4): preparation and planning. The principal who rated King noted that the teacher had ignored administrative directives, had exhibited lapses of professional judgment, and had failed to make master plans or pupil lesson plans. As a result of this rating, King did not receive credit for that year, and did not receive his anniversary incremental salary increase. At the end of the 1977-1978 school year, however, King was given a satisfactory performance rating.
1 Petitioner Mayer attempted to protest his failure to receive a salary increase for the periods noted by resort to a grievance procedure which had been in effect before the adoption of the collective bargaining agreement. As already noted, no such procedure is provided for in the agreement. In any event, his grievance was denied by the trustees.
In June of 1978, Mayer, King, and a third teacher petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate which if granted would require the board to pay to them the difference between the salary they would have earned, had they received satisfactory performance ratings, and the salary they actually received. 6 They also prayed that the district be ordered to cease and desist from enforcing any policy whereby salary increases were conditioned upon the teachers' receipt of satisfactory performance ratings.
In their answer to the petition for writ of mandate the trustees, among other things, pleaded as an affirmative defense that the petition "fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Respondent."
At the hearing on the petition, various declarations were received as direct evidence. After the hearing, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it found the collective bargaining agreement's condition of satisfactory performance to qualify for pay increases to be in violation of Education Code section 45028, and thus invalid. The district requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. Such findings were made, objections to them heard, and revised findings of fact and conclusions of law filed. Judgment was entered for the petitioners, and a peremptory writ of mandate served upon the district. The district filed a return to the peremptory writ of mandate stating that it was appealing the adverse judgment. This appeal followed.
The appellants make three assignments of error. Because of our disposition of the principal issue, i. e., whether the professional incentive provision of the collective bargaining agreement noted and the district's equivalent pre-agreement policy violate Education section 45028, we do not consider: (1) the appellants' contention that the Los Alamitos Education Association, on behalf of the teachers, had waived their right to argue that the salary increase procedure violated state law; or (2) that the action must be returned to the trial court because of the failure to join an indispensable party, namely, the Los Alamitos Education Association which represented the teachers' bargaining unit in negotiating the agreement.
Before the amendment of section 13506 (now section 45028) in 1969, to be effective July 1, 1970, it read as here pertinent that "(u)niform allowance may be made in any schedule of salaries for years of training and for years of service." 7 Under the guidance of that language the decisions had upheld the actions by school districts in adopting a wide variety of differential experience credits in fixing salaries for their teachers where such differentials were adjudged as "reasonable." The leading case relied upon for this kind of disposition is Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753, 112 P.2d 229. As noted in Fry, this statutory language, while "enjoin(ing) (upon a school district), within reasonable limits, the principle of uniformity of treatment as to salary for those performing like services with like experience . . . (did) not prevent (a school district) from making reasonable classifications." (Id. at pp. 757-758, 112 P.2d at p. 233.) Such classifications have been upheld unless they were "arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewster v. Board of Educ. of Lynwood Unified School Dist.
... ... See Mayer v. Board of Trustees, 106 Cal.App.3d 476, 165 Cal.Rptr. 655, 662 (1980). The District defines "experience" to include full-time ... ...
-
Wygant v. Victor Valley Joint High School Dist.
... ... ' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Public Employment Relations Board, and in holding that the school district's professional growth program violated the mandate of ... 's contention that the application of the Professional Growth Policy by the Board of Trustees violates Education Code Section 45028 raises a question whether the Board of Trustees was meeting ... Experience as a teacher results from the performance of a teacher's duties. (See Mayer v. Board of Trustees (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 476, 488, 165 Cal.Rptr. 655.) Those duties generally ... ...
-
San Francisco Classroom Teachers Assn. v. San Francisco Unified School Dist.
... ... BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants ... On the other hand, Mayer v. Board of Trustees (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 476, 165 Cal.Rptr. 655, which upheld a collective ... ...
-
United Teachers of Ukiah v. Board of Education
... ... district maintained the PERB had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim since the complaint raised a question as to whether the Board of Trustees had satisfied its obligation under the EERA to meet and negotiate in good faith. (Gov.Code, § 3543.5, subd. (c).) ... The court ... v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 650, 147 Cal.Rptr. 359, 580 P.2d 1155 and Mayer v. Board of Trustees (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 476, 165 Cal.Rptr. 655 which, they assert, stand for the proposition that despite the uniformity ... ...