Wygant v. Victor Valley Joint High School Dist.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1985
• Citation: 168 Cal.App.3d 319,214 Cal.Rptr. 205
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 25 Ed. Law Rep. 396 Nancy J. WYGANT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. VICTOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. E000572, E001451.

Page 205

214 Cal.Rptr. 205

168 Cal.App.3d 319, 25 Ed. Law Rep. 396

Nancy J. WYGANT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

VICTOR VALLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

E000572, E001451.

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

May 16, 1985.

[168 Cal.App.3d 321] Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, and Steven J. Andelson, San Bernardino, for defendant and appellant.

Ronald G. Skipper, San Bernardino, for plaintiffs and respondents.

OPINION

MORRIS, Presiding Justice.

Defendant and appellant, Victor Valley Joint Union High School District (school district), appeals from judgments entered on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents and directing that Ms. Wygant, a certificated teacher, be reclassified on the certificated salary schedule, and that the school district's professional growth policy be rescinded. The two judgments have been joined on appeal because the factual and legal issues are substantially the same.

On appeal the school district contends that the trial court erred in reviewing plaintiffs' claims despite plaintiffs' 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 Education Code section 45028 that certificated employees be uniformly classified on a salary schedule for years of training and years of experience. We affirm the judgments.

FACTS

On February 7, 1983, Ms. Wygant, a certificated teacher in Victor Valley Joint Union High School District, petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate, declaratory relief and damages against the school district, based on the legal ground that the school district's professional growth policy (salary policy No. 4912) violated Education Code section 45028. (Section 45028 and the professional growth policy will be described in the substantive discussion thereon.) Ms. Wygant had failed to earn the required professional growth units within the time allotted, and was refused credit for two years of experience on the salary schedule.

Later in February, the Victor Valley Teachers Association also petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief on the same legal grounds.

The trial court issued the writ of mandate in favor of both plaintiffs, commanding the school district to credit Ms. Wygant for two years of experience and to pay the salary differential due by reason of such reclassification, and commanding the school district to eliminate and rescind the professional growth policy. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

The school district contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Public Employment Relations Board. We disagree.

The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) provides an administrative remedy for unfair practices and violation of Government Code sections 3540-3549.3. (Gov.Code, § 3451.3, subdivision (i).) Where unfair practices are alleged by plaintiff, "[t]he initial determination as to whether the charges of unfair practices are justified, and, if so, what remedy is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board." (Gov.Code, § 3541.5; see San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 12, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838; Leek v. Washington Unified School Dist. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 43, 47, 177 Cal.Rptr. 196; Los Angeles Council of School Nurses v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 666, 670, 169 Cal.Rptr. 893.)

The problem with the school district's contention is that in this case neither unfair practices nor violation of Government Code sections 3540- 3549.3 are alleged by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' sole allegation pertinent to this discussion is that the district's professional growth policy violates the uniformity mandated by Education Code section 45028.

We hold that PERB does not have exclusive initial jurisdiction where a plaintiff's allegations are confined solely to a unilateral violation of Education Code section 45028 by a school district. The Government Code expressly provides that "[n]othing contained [in Government Code sections 3540-3549.3] shall be deemed to supersede other provisions of the Education Code and the rules and regulations of public school employers which establish and regulate tenure or a merit or civil service system...." (Gov.Code, § 3540.) The California Supreme Court has held that the intent of section 3540 is to preclude contractual agreements which would alter statutory provisions that mandate particular procedures, protections and entitlements. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 866, 191 Cal.Rptr. 800, 663 P.2d 523.)

Two mandatory statutes are applicable to this case. First, Education Code section 45028 requires that "[e]ffective July 1, 1970, each person employed by a district in a position requiring certification qualifications except a person employed in a position requiring administrative or supervisory credentials, shall be classified on the salary schedule on the basis of uniform allowance for years of training and years of experience." (Emphasis added.) ¹ Second, Education Code section 44924 provides that, "Except as provided in Sections 44937 and 44956, any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any employee to waive the benefits of this chapter or any part thereof is null and void." We conclude that where a claim is based solely on violation of Education Code section 45028 the normal jurisdiction of a trial court over civil disputes is not superseded by the area of exclusive jurisdiction of PERB provided by Government Code section 3541.5, at least to the extent the violation of section 45028 is not pursuant to mutual agreement as authorized by Government Code section 3543.2, subdivision (d).

The Government Code is consistent with this conclusion. Government Code section 3541.5, subdivision (b), states that: "The board shall not have authority to enforce agreements between the parties, and shall not issue a complaint on any charge based on alleged violation of such an agreement that would not also constitute an unfair practice under this chapter." Furthermore, trial court resolution without involvement by PERB of a claim limited to Education Code section 45028 does not conflict with the Legislature's desire to "... provid[e] 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 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." (Gov.Code, § 3540.)

The school district does not assert that plaintiffs' alleged unfair practices or violation of Government Code sections 3540-3549.3. Instead, the school district frames their jurisdictional argument as follows: "The Association'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 and negotiating in good faith as required under Government Code Section 3543.5(c). [p] Since there exists a question whether the Board of Trustees negotiated in good faith in the application of the Professional Growth Policy, PERB should have initial exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate the issue. This point is well supported by California case law."

In fact, the California case law cited by the school district for this proposition either explicitly (San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 3, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838; Leek v. Washington Unified School Dist., supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at p. 50, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838; Los Angeles Council of School Nurses v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 669, 169 Cal.Rptr. 893; Grant District Education Association, CTA/NEA v. Grant Joint Union High School District (Feb. 26, 1982) PERB Dec. No. 196, 6 PERC p 13064, at p. 223) or implicitly (Amador Valley Secondary Educators Assn. v. Newlin (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 254, 257, 151 Cal.Rptr. 724) involved situations in which plaintiff alleged unfair practices or violation of Government Code sections 3540-3549.3, albeit sometimes in combination with allegations based on other statutory or constitutional grounds (Los Angeles Council of School Nurses v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra; Leek v. Washington Unified School Dist., supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at p. 51, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838); violation of a mandatory provision of the Education Code was not the sole allegation of plaintiff in any of these cases. Indeed, the school district's contention goes too far. Every employee lawsuit complaining of acts of a school district qua employer arguably raises a question of whether a school district was meeting and negotiating in good faith, yet PERB's exclusive jurisdiction is not all inclusive.

II. Validity of the Professional Growth Policy

A. The Policy

The school district contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the school district's professional growth program was contrary to the mandate of Education Code section 45028 that certificated employees be uniformly classified on a salary schedule for years of training and years of experience. We agree with the trial court and hold that the professional growth program is unlawful on its face and as applied.

The school district's base salary schedule provides for salary increases based on experience and...