Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers

• Decision Date: 28 July 1977
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO
• Citation: 72 Cal.App.3d 100,140 Cal.Rptr. 41
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2363 PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PASADENA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, American Federation of Teachers, Pasadena Local 1050,, and Saul Glickman, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 49576.

Page 41

140 Cal.Rptr. 41

72 Cal.App.3d 100, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2363

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PASADENA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, American Federation of Teachers, Pasadena Local 1050, AFL-CIO, and Saul Glickman, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 49576.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

July 28, 1977.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 18, 1977.

Hearing Denied Nov. 25, 1977.

John H. Larson, County Counsel, Donovan M. Main, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Levy, Koszdin, Goldschmid & Sroloff, and Henry R. Fenton, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

POTTER, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff, Pasadena Unified School District, appeals from the judgment of the superior court dismissing plaintiff's action for damages, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision 3, upon plaintiff's failure to amend within the period specified in the court's order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

The complaint seeks damages 'for interference with contractual relations' against defendants American Federation of Teachers, Pasadena Local 1050, AFL-CIO (hereinafter 'Union'), Saul Glickman (president of the local) and 150 Does. It alleges that the union is 'an unincorporated association of certified employees of plaintiff,' having 'as one of its primary purposes the representation of said certificated employees in their relations with plaintiff school district as provided in the 'Winton Act' comprising Sections 13080 to 13088 of the Education Code.' Existing 'employment contracts between all certificated employees' and plaintiff 'for the 1973--1974 school year' 'called for the rendering of various instructional services to the students of plaintiff school district.' These contracts 'were to be performed in accordance with California State Law and the policies, rules and regulations of the Pasadena Board of Education in the period beginning September 1, 1973, and ending June 30, 1974.'

The complaint charges a conspiracy by the Union and its president 'to induce the members of the (Union) and other certificated employees of the Pasadena Unified School District to breach their employment contracts with plaintiff by calling upon said certificated employees to participate in a one-day work stoppage and strike by withholding their services from plaintiff on June 4, 1974.' Pursuant to the conspiracy, the defendants 'advised and induced' the members of the Union and other certificated employees of plaintiff 'to hold a work stoppage and strike on June 4, 1974, and thus induced them to violate state law prohibiting work stoppages and strikes by public school employees and induced them to breach their employment contracts with plaintiff school district.'

Actual damage in the sum of $230,617 occasioned by the loss of 'one full day of effective instruction' and expenditures caused by the strike are alleged. In addition, it is charged that the acts of defendant 'were done maliciously, intentionally and deliberately for the purpose of preventing the teachers of the plaintiff school district from rendering instructional services to the students of the district on June 4, 1974, and for the purpose of disrupting the educational program required by law to be supplied by the Pasadena Unified School District.' On this basis, exemplary damages in the sum of $100,000 are sought.

Defendants demurred to the complaint 'on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action . . ..' The court ordered 'Demurrer sustained per grounds in moving papers. 30 days to amend.' No amendment was offered within said period.

Contentions

Plaintiff contends: (1) that 'IT IS ILLEGAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES TO STRIKE IN CALIFORNIA'; (2) that enforcement of this prohibition 'DOES NOT VIOLATE RESPONDENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SPEECH OR ADVOCACY'; (3) that the complaint does not show that defendants were privileged to induce the breach of contract; and (4) that damages are recoverable by plaintiff on account of the illegal strike and the breach of contract thereby induced.

Defendant contend: (1) that 'STRIKES BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ILLEGAL'; (2) that 'IMPOSITION OF TORT DAMAGES WOULD VIOLATE THE UNION'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH'; and (3) 'THE UNION WAS PRIVILEGED TO INDUCE ITS MEMBERS TO BREACH THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE DISTRICT.'

Discussion

It is unlawful for public school employees in California to strike. Enforcement of this prohibition does not violate constitutional rights of speech or advocacy of the employees or their union. The union is not privileged to induce breach of contract by calling an illegal strike; by so doing, the union incurs liability for the resulting damage.

It is, therefore, apparent that the complaint states a cause of action for damages and the judgment must be reversed.

It Is Unlawful for California Public School Employees to Strike

There is no square holding of our Supreme Court passing upon the legality of strikes by public employees. However, in Los Angeles Met. Transit Authority v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 54 Cal.2d 684, 8 Cal.Rptr. 1, 355 P.2d 905 (in which the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority Act was held to authorize strikes by employees of that agency) the court said (Id. at p. 687, 8 Cal.Rptr. at p. 2, 355 P.2d at p. 906): 'In the absence of legislative authorization public employees in general do not have the right to strike (see 31 A.L.R.2d 1142, 1159--1161), . . .' Since that decision, the courts of appeal in this state have consistently held in accordance with the above dictum that strikes by public employees are unlawful. In the most recent opinion of this court, Division Five, in Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. United Teachers, 24 Cal.App.3d 142, 100 Cal.Rptr. 806, affirmed an order granting a temporary injunction prohibiting a strike by school teachers against the school district on the ground that it was per se unlawful. In so doing, the court said (Id. at pp. 145--146, 100 Cal.Rptr. at p. 808):

'As stated in defendants' argument of these issues, and as our own research confirms: 'Several (Courts of Appeal) and Superior Courts have held that the Supreme Court has ruled that in absence of legislative authorization, public employees in California do not have the right to strike . . . The (Court of Appeal for the Third District) in Almond v. County of Sacramento, 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 80 Cal.Rptr. 518, held that public employees in the absence of legislative authority do not have the right to strike. The (Court of Appeal for the Fourth District) in City of San Diego v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 127, 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 held that the California common law rule is that public employees do not have the right to strike and there is no constitutional right for public employees to strike their public employer. The (Court of Appeal for the First District) in Trustees of the California State Colleges v. Local Teachers, 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 held that California follows and applies the common law rule that public employees do not have the right to strike in the absence of a statutory grant.'

'Defendants contend that '(i)n spite of the contrary decisions of the (Courts of Appeal) that have decided this question, this issue must be appealed to this (Court of Appeal) in order to allow this District to rule on this question and in order to present the question to the Supreme Courts of California and the United States.'

'We have examined the briefs of the parties which argue the issues with great thoroughness on both sides. We agree with the statements that the issues here presented have been determined adversely to the contentions of defendants in three of the five appellate districts of the Court of Appeal of this state, and in each instance the California Supreme Court has denied a petition for hearing. Thus, we can conceive of no benefit which would result from our reanalyses of the same issues which the three cited opinions have exhaustively treated, with extensive citation of authority.'

Nothing has happened since to warrant reexamination of the question. The conduct of the Legislature has affirmed its intent to withhold the right to strike from public educational employees. The Winton Act, as enacted in 1965 and amended in 1970, expressly withholds applicability of 'the provisions of Section 923 of the Labor Code' ¹ to public school employees. (Ed.Code, § 13088.) The provisions of new chapter 10.7 of the Government Code which replaced the Winton Act, operative July 1, 1976, contain the same provision in Government Code section 3549.

At about the same time, the Legislature, in adopting new Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3, limiting the power of courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes, included a subdivision (d) as follows: 'Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to alter the legal rights of public employees or their employers . . .' thereby indicating its intent to retain the existing rule making public employee strikes unlawful. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Evankovich, 69 Cal.App.3d 41, 52, 137 Cal.Rptr. 883.)

Decisions of the appellate courts of this state, subsequent to the 1972 decision of this court in Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, do not give any reason to question the continued authority of the line of cases therein cited. In City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper, 13 Cal.3d 898, 912, 120 Cal.Rptr. 707, 715, 534 P.2d 403, 411, our Supreme Court noted these authorities and referred to them as 'a series of Court of Appeal decisions which have concluded that under the present state of California law public employees do not have the right to strike.' However, the court found it unnecessary 'to resolve this controversy in the present action.' (Id.) Most recently, the question was again decided by the...