San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1983
• Docket Number: S.F. 24401
• Citation: 663 P.2d 523,33 Cal.3d 850,191 Cal.Rptr. 800
• Parties: , 663 P.2d 523, 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2195, 11 Ed. Law Rep. 672 SAN MATEO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, SAN MATEO ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, CTA, NEA, Real Party in Interest. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, HEALDSBURG UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Real Parties in Interest. HEALDSBURG UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Petitioners, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 800

191 Cal.Rptr. 800

33 Cal.3d 850, 663 P.2d 523, 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2195,

11 Ed. Law Rep. 672

SAN MATEO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, SAN MATEO ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, CTA, NEA, Real Party in Interest.

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, HEALDSBURG UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Real Parties in Interest.

HEALDSBURG UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Petitioners, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Real Party in Interest.

S.F. 24401.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

May 19, 1983.

William E. Brown, Nancy B. Ozsogomonyan and Brown & Conradi, San Mateo, for petitioner San Mateo City School Dist.

Peter A. Janiak, Madalyn J. Frazzini, E. Luis Saenz, Maureen C. Whelan and Siona D. Windsor, San Jose, for petitioner and real party in interest California School Employees Assn.

V.T. Hitchcock and Rene Auguste Chouteau, San Rosa, for petitioners and real parties in interest Healdsburg Union High School Dist. and Healdsburg Union School Dist.

Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty. (San Mateo), and Lillian Lee Port, Asst. Dist. Atty., as amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.

Fred H. Altshuler, Marsha S. Berzon, Altshuler & Berzon, San Francisco, Dennis M. Sullivan, Jeffrey Sloan, Sacramento, and Elaine B. Feingold, San Francisco, for respondent.

Kirsten L. Zerger, Salinas, Raymond L. Hansen, Los Angeles, and Diane Ross, San Francisco, for real party in interest San Mateo Elementary Teachers Assn.

Diana D. Halpenny, John L. Bukey and Walters, Bukey & Shelburne, Sacramento, as amici curiae on behalf of real party in interest Healdsburg Union High School Dist.

Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger, Stewart Weinberg, Robert A. Galgani, John I. Meeker and Breon, Galgani, Godino & O'Donnell, San Francisco, as amici curiae.

REYNOSO, Justice.

The San Mateo City School District petitions for review of a decision of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) finding it committed unfair labor practices by refusing to meet and negotiate on certain contract proposals made by the representatives of its certified employees. The Healdsburg Union High School and Healdsburg Union School Districts and the California School Employees Association each petition for review of a PERB decision finding the Healdsburg Districts committed unfair labor practices by refusing to negotiate over certain contract proposals and finding that other proposals were outside the scope of representation defined by the Educational Employment Relations Act, Government Code section 3540 et seq. The Court of Appeal issued writs of review and consolidated the cases because all present important questions of first impression regarding the scope of collective negotiations between public school employees and school districts.

The issues before us are whether PERB, as an administrative agency authorized by law to administer the Educational Employment Relations Act, has articulated a test for determining negotiability which is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Act, and whether PERB correctly determined the negotiability of the contract proposals at issue.

After the decisions which form the basis for this litigation were rendered the Legislature acted to increase membership on PERB from three members to five. A majority of these five members has resolved the inconsistencies apparent in the opinions before us in a later decision. We conclude that PERB has now developed a test for negotiability which properly implements the Government Code. Accordingly, we remand these cases to PERB for reconsideration of the specific contract proposals in light of the later decision and the views expressed in this opinion.

Factual Background

The San Mateo case arose out of a dispute as to whether the allocation of the teachers' work day between instructional duty time, preparation time, and rest time is a proper subject of negotiation under the Educational Employment Relations Act (the Act or the EERA), and whether the San Mateo City School District (the San Mateo District) is therefore precluded from unilaterally changing the length of the student instructional day without engaging in requested negotiations over the impact of that change on the amount of time during the school day available to teachers for preparation. The San Mateo Elementary Teachers Association (SMETA) presented contract proposals with provisions regarding instructional duty time, preparation and rest time during negotiations for the 1976-1977 and the 1977-1978 contract years. The San Mateo District refused to negotiate over preparation time and twice unilaterally adopted policy changes which increased the length of the instructional day.

A majority of PERB's three members found all three subjects to be within the scope of representation defined by the Act in Government Code section 3543.2. ¹ PERB found that the San Mateo District had violated section 3543.5, subdivision (c) by refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith on these topics and over the effects of changes in the length of the student instructional day on the teacher instructional day and preparation time. A charge that the San Mateo District had refused to negotiate over rest time in the 1977-1978 sessions was dismissed upon a finding that it had, in fact, presented at least one substantive proposal on the matter. (San Mateo Elem. Teachers' Assn. v. San Mateo City Sch. Dist. (May 20, 1980), PERB Dec. No. 129.)

The Healdsburg case arose after the Healdsburg Union High School and Healdsburg Union School Districts refused to negotiate on items contained in 13 articles of a 107-page form contract submitted by the California School Employees Association (CSEA) during negotiations for the 1976 - 1977 year. The districts asserted the subjects were outside the scope of representation defined by the EERA. ²

In a combination of majority and concurring and dissenting opinions PERB ruled that specified portions of 12 of the articles were subjects upon which the Healdsburg Districts were required to negotiate. PERB found the refusal to do so a violation of subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 3543.5 in that the Healdsburg Districts had refused to negotiate over negotiable subjects and had interfered with the exclusive representative's right to negotiate an agreement on behalf of the unit members. PERB dismissed the unfair practice allegation with regard to article XI ³ (Calif. Sch. Employees Assn. v. Healdsburg Union High Sch. Dist. and Healdsburg Union Sch. Dist. (June 19, 1980), PERB Dec. No. 132.)

I

The EERA establishes a system of collective bargaining for employees of public school districts educating students in grades kindergarten through 14. It was enacted in 1975 (Stats.1975, ch. 961, § 2, p. 2247, operative July 1, 1976; codified as §§ 3540-3549.3). The Act requires the school district employer to meet and negotiate in good faith with the duly selected exclusive representative of its employees as to subjects within the statutorily defined scope of representation. (§§ 3543.3, 3543.5.) The parties may enter into a binding agreement (§ 3540.1, subd. (h)), and may agree that disputes involving interpretation, application or violation of the agreement be resolved through binding arbitration (§§ 3548.5, 3548.6, 3548.7). The employer must negotiate in good faith and must submit to mediation and advisory fact-finding where an impasse in negotiations is determined to have been reached. (§§ 3548-3548.3.) But the final decision as to the terms of the negotiated agreement, including those matters within the scope of representation, is reserved to the employer. (§ 3549.)

The purpose of the EERA is set forth in section 3540: "to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations within the public school systems in ... California by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school employees to join organizations of their own choice, to be represented by such organizations in their professional and employment relationships with public school employers, to select one employee organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, and to afford certificated employees a voice in the formulation of educational policy."

The Act created PERB as an independent board of three members appointed by the Governor ⁴ with broad powers and duties to administer the Act. (§ 3541.3.) Generally, PERB is empowered to decide contested matters pertaining to all aspects of the selection and certification of employee organizations, to oversee and facilitate the negotiating process established by the Act, to adopt rules and regulations, conduct studies, recommend legislation and maintain research and training programs to effectuate the purposes of the Act, to hold hearings and order remedies for violations of the Act, and to seek court orders enforcing its own orders, decisions and rulings.

PERB is specifically empowered to "determine in disputed cases whether a particular item is within or without the scope of representation" and to investigate unfair practice charges and "take such action and make such determinations in respect of such charges ... as the board deems necessary to effectuate the policies of [the Act]." (§ 3541.3, subds., (b) and (i).) The initial determination of whether unfair practice charges are justified is within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB. (§ 3541.5.)

Interpretation of the statutory provision defining scope of representation thus falls squarely within PERB's legislatively designated field of expertise. Under established principles PERB's construction is to be regarded with deference by a court performing the judicial function of statutory construction, and will generally be followed unless it is clearly erroneous. (Highland Ranch v. Agricultural Labor...