El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1983
• Citation: 33 Cal.3d 946,192 Cal.Rptr. 123,663 P.2d 893
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 663 P.2d 893, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2235, 11 Ed. Law Rep. 562 EL RANCHO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents. L.A. 31581.

Page 123

192 Cal.Rptr. 123

33 Cal.3d 946, 663 P.2d 893, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2235,

11 Ed. Law Rep. 562

EL RANCHO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

L.A. 31581.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

May 31, 1983.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Paul M. Loya and Brian M. Libow, Long Beach, for plaintiff and appellant.

Michael R. White, Kirsten L. Zerger, Raymond L. Hansen, Penn Foote, Henry R. Fenton and Levy & Goldman, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

Dennis Sullivan, Jeffrey Sloan, Sacramento, Elaine B. Feingold and Andrea L. Biren, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and respondents.

BIRD, Chief Justice.

Does the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) have exclusive jurisdiction over a school district's complaint for damages resulting from a teachers' strike led by noncertified employee organizations?

I.

This case, which began in the trial court over five years ago, is still in the pleading stage. It was before this court on one prior occasion. Although it has a complicated procedural history, the events giving rise to the litigation are essentially without controversy.

Plaintiff is the El Rancho Unified School District (District). Defendants are four labor unions--the National Education Association, its affiliates, the California Teachers Association and the El Rancho Education Association, and the California Federation of Teachers and its affiliate, the El Rancho Federation of Teachers (Unions).

When the students enrolled in the District returned to school in the fall of 1976, they were met with a teachers' strike in which a large number of the District's teachers participated. The strike, which was called for and led by the Unions, lasted from the first day of school, September 13, 1976, until October 7, 1976, and allegedly cost the District over one million dollars. At the time of the strike, none of the Unions had been recognized or certified as the exclusive representative of the District's teachers under the then newly enacted Education Employment Relations Act (EERA). (Gov.Code, § 3540 et seq.) ¹

On March 31, 1977, the District filed an unfair practice charge with PERB, claiming that the Unions twice violated EERA during the strike. The District claimed that the Unions violated section 3543.6, subdivision (b) of EERA ² by engaging in threatening, coercive, and intimidating conduct towards its teachers during the allegedly illegal strike. Such conduct, the District asserted, constituted unlawful interference with the teachers' exercise of their rights "to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations," and "to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with [a] public school employer." (§ 3543.) ³ In addition, the District charged the Unions with violating subdivision (a) of section 3543.6 ⁴ by demanding that the District meet and negotiate with them despite the fact that all were noncertified. According to the District, such action constituted an attempt to cause the District to interfere with the teachers' exercise of their alleged right to be represented in negotiations only by an exclusive bargaining agent of their choice. (See §§ 3543, 3543.3.) ⁵

On June 15, 1977, PERB's general counsel ordered the first of the unfair practice claims dismissed without leave to amend after concluding that the District lacked standing to assert its employees' rights. The District appealed and on December 30, 1977, PERB reversed this ruling and remanded the case to the general counsel for settlement or hearing. (See El Rancho Federation of Teachers, et al. (December 30, 1977) EERB Dec. No. 45.)

On September 30, 1977, while its PERB appeal was still pending, the District filed the present tort action against the Unions in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Seeking actual damages of $1.1 million and punitive damages of $10 million, the District charged the Unions with (1) inducing the El Rancho teachers to breach their employment contracts; (2) engaging in an illegal strike "whereby [the Unions] coerced or otherwise induced [the teachers] to refrain from rendering services" to the District; and (3) conspiring to coerce and coercing the District to negotiate with the Unions in violation of section 3543.3 of EERA (see ante, fn. 5).

The Unions demurred to the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. (See Code Civ.Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).) More specifically, after properly invoking judicial notice of the PERB proceedings, ⁶ the Unions argued that PERB had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute since it arguably involved unfair labor practices.

In support of their argument, the Unions directed the court's attention to section 3541.3 of EERA which vests PERB with the power "[t]o investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations" of the act, and to section 3541.5, which declares that "[t]he initial determination as to whether ... charges of unfair practices are justified, and, if so, what remedy is necessary to effectuate the purposes of [the act], shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of [PERB]."

The Unions' demurrers were overruled on March 15, 1978. Undeterred, they petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition commanding the trial court to dismiss the action. Alternative writs were issued, but on July 19, 1978, the appellate court continued the hearing on the writs pending this court's decision in San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838, a case involving similar issues.

The decision in San Diego Teachers was filed in April of 1979. In it, this court held that PERB had exclusive jurisdiction over a school district's action to enjoin an allegedly illegal strike led by an exclusive representative, since the strike arguably constituted an unfair practice under EERA. (Id., at p. 14, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838.) However, this holding was explicitly limited to actions seeking "injunctions against strikes by public school employee organizations recognized or certified as exclusive representatives." (Ibid., citation omitted.)

Following this decision, the Court of Appeal discharged the alternative writs issued in this case and denied the Unions' petitions. The only reason given for its action was this: "In light of the decision in San Diego Teachers ..., relief by extraordinary writ is no longer indicated."

Confronted with this unquestionably cryptic order, the Unions filed a petition for rehearing. When it was denied, they petitioned for hearing in this court. By order filed September 26, 1979, their petition was denied "without prejudice to [their] right to seek reconsideration by the trial court of its prior rulings in light of the intervening decision of San Diego Teachers ...."

Thus armed, the Unions returned to the trial court and promptly moved for reconsideration of the order overruling their demurrers. The trial court reconsidered its ruling and on January 14, 1980, sustained the demurrers but gave the District leave to amend.

The District subsequently filed an amended complaint. The first three causes of action in the amended complaint are virtually identical to the three causes of action stated in the original complaint. The only additions or deletions of interest are these. First, the District eliminated the allegation that the Unions coerced the teachers into participating in the strike. Instead, the amended complaint merely avers that the Unions "encouraged, advised, and induced" the teachers to strike.

Second, the District added to the first and third causes of action an allegation stating that the District's unfair practice charge was "dismissed" by PERB and "such dismissal was stipulated by the parties to be without prejudice to [the District] in this litigation." ⁷ In addition, the third cause of action now charges the Unions with conspiring to coerce and coercing the District not only to negotiate with the Unions in violation of section 3543.3 but also to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with them.

Finally, the District added a fourth cause of action. That cause charges the Unions with conspiring to cause and causing a violation of the California Compulsory Education Law by making it impossible for students to attend school by means of the allegedly illegal strike. (See Ed.Code, § 48200.) ⁸

The Unions again demurred, and on July 15, 1980, the trial court finally sustained their demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the action. ⁹ Their victory, however, was short-lived.

The District appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment insofar as it dismissed the first and second causes of action. Although the Court of Appeal agreed that San Diego Teachers was controlling, it concluded that PERB had no jurisdiction over the Union's strike activity because there was no arguable basis on which the strike could be found to constitute an unfair practice under EERA. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

This court granted the Union's petition for hearing because of the importance of the issues presented. ¹⁰

II.

The principal issue presented by this appeal is whether EERA divests a superior court of jurisdiction to entertain a school district's tort suit for damages arising out of a teachers' strike led by noncertified unions.

In San Diego Teachers, supra, 24 Cal.3d 1, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838, this court held that PERB has exclusive jurisdiction over actions to enjoin strikes by public school employee organizations recognized or certified as exclusive representatives under EERA. (Id., at p. 14, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838.) This case, of course, concerns a suit for compensatory and punitive damages, not injunctive relief based on a strike led by noncertified employee organizations. Our...