Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02828/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02828-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
San Francisco Unified School District
Respondent
United Educators of San Francisco
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED EDUCATORS OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

Petitioner,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-02828 WHA

Related to:

No. C 78-01445 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

PETITION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION

INTRODUCTION

In this labor dispute, petitioner seeks to enforce arbitration clauses contained in two

collective bargaining agreements. Because this order finds that there is a valid agreement to

arbitrate and it encompasses (at least some of) the grievances at issue, the petition is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Petitioner United Educators of San Francisco is the bargaining representative for

certificated employees (i.e., teachers, counselors, nurses, etc.) and paraprofessional employees

of respondent San Francisco Unified School District. On behalf of these two groups of

employees, petitioner negotiated two collective bargaining agreements (Holtzman Exhs. H & I). 

Both CBAs contained detailed grievance procedures, culminating in binding arbitration

(Holtzman Exh. H at Art. 19.8.3; Exh. I at Art. 18.8.3). Petitioner filed separate grievances, one

on behalf of the certificated employees and the other on behalf of the paraprofessional

employees, appended as exhibits to the petition to compel arbitration (see also Holtzman

Case 3:05-cv-02828-WHA Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Exhs. K & L). This petition was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on June 13, 2005, after

respondent refused to submit to arbitration.

Respondent removed the case on July 12, 2005. It argues that the grievances stem from

the implementation of a desegregation consent decree in the related case listed above. By

stipulation of the parties in that action, the Dream Schools initiative, also known as Dramatic

Accelerated Educational Reform, was incorporated into the consent decree. By order dated

October 18, 2004, the Court required respondent to “take all necessary steps” to reconstitute

seven designated schools in time for the 2005–06 school year (Holtzman Exh. B). 

“Reconstitution” means that an existing school is recreated from scratch, whereby the entire

faculty and administration are replaced with a new staff. Petitioner filed the grievances at issue

because employees at the seven schools targeted for conversion into Dream Schools were asked

to reapply for their jobs and involuntarily transferred to other schools if they were not selected. 

It claims that this violated the negotiated evaluation procedures in the CBAs. In addition,

petitioner argues that the certificated employees (i.e., teachers) who were selected for Dream

Schools are not being adequately compensated for working longer hours, in violation of other

CBA provisions.

Respondent asserts that the consent decree trumps any alleged violation of the CBAs. In

short, it argues that arbitration should not proceed because there is a risk that the arbitrator

would incorrectly interpret the obligations of the school district under the consent decree, in

conflict with the prior rulings of this Court. It points to several provisions suggesting that the

parties openly acknowledged the supremacy of the consent decree. Article 39 of the CBA

applicable to certificated employees provides in relevant part:

Subject to compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree . . . the

District and the Union shall: (1) continue to honor their obligations under

the collective bargaining agreement, and (2) also honor their obligations to

bargain and/or consult on matters . . . including the impact, if any, which

compliance with said Consent Decree has on such matters. The Union and

the District agree that the staffing of personnel at those schools impacted

by the Consent Decree shall be in accordance with a plan developed

pursuant to the Consent Decree to successfully implement the approved

educational programs for the students. Only teachers who apply for

positions may be selected; those selected shall be the most qualified based

upon the plan and educational programs.

Case 3:05-cv-02828-WHA Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Similarly, Article 21.6 of the CBA applicable to paraprofessional employees provides:

The District and the Union reaffirm that the provisions of their collective

bargaining agreement, including this Article [concerning layoffs], shall be

in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, NAACP, et al. v.

San Francisco Unified School District, Civil No. C78-1445 WHO. The

District and the Union agree that United Support Personnel staffing, as

contemplated herein, at schools impacted by said Consent Decree shall be

in accordance with said Decree Plan.

In short, respondent argues that the parties never intended any disputes arising from the school

district’s implementation of Dream Schools to be subject to arbitration. In the alternative,

respondent urges the Court to exercise its discretion under California Civil Procedure Code

§ 1281.2(c) and refrain from enforcing the arbitration clause due to the possibility of conflicting

rulings.

ANALYSIS

The parties agree that the determination of whether an issue is subject to arbitration is

governed by California law, not federal law. On a petition to compel arbitration, the court shall

order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate

the controversy exists, unless (a) the right to arbitration has been waived by petitioner; or

(b) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (c) a party to the arbitration agreement is

also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding arising out of the same transaction

or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common

issue of law or fact. If the third exception applies, the court (1) may refuse to enforce the

arbitration agreement; (2) may order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action;

(3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitrate and stay the pending

court action; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the pending court action. Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2. This order notes that the parties appear to agree that the grievance

procedures outlined in the CBAs (and other provisions thereof) are otherwise enforceable. The

dispute is whether grievances that stem from the school district’s obligations under the consent

decree are also subject to arbitration.

“Arbitration is, of course, a matter of contract, and the parties may freely delineate the

area of its application.” O’Malley v. Wilshire Oil 59 Cal.2d 482, 491 (1963). Any doubts,

Case 3:05-cv-02828-WHA Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

however, should be resolved in favor of submitting the grievance to arbitration. Ibid. Because

there is a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements, “waivers are not to be lightly inferred

and the party seeking to establish a wavier bears a heavy burden of proof.” Saint Agnes Med.

Ctr. v. Pacificare of Calif., 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1195 (2003).

Respondent argues that petitioner waived the right to arbitrate any grievances that arose

from the school district’s implementation of Dream Schools as required under the consent

decree. This order agrees as to the staffing issue. But, the provisions in the CBAs cited above

do not bar an arbitrator from hearing grievances concerning the district’s obligations to

employees now at Dream Schools. The arbitrators may decide whether there was any violation

of the CBAs independent of the parties’ agreement that staffing (i.e., selection of employees) at

schools impacted by the consent decree would be in accordance with the consent decree itself. 

Petitioner correctly argues that the awards, if any, are not self-enforcing. Respondent may thus

file a petition to vacate the arbitration awards if they are inconsistent with the consent decree.

Finally, it is not clear that petitioner’s grievances arose out of the same transaction or

series of transactions as any pending court actions. The grievances stemmed from the

reconstitution of the seven new schools targeted for conversion into Dream Schools. In the

related action listed above, however, the reconstitution of these schools was a proposed remedy

for, rather than the basis of, the underlying allegations of de jure segregation. Even assuming

that California Civil Procedure Code § 1281.2(c) applied here, the Court would decline to

exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce the arbitration clause, at least as described below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The parties

are ordered to proceed immediately to arbitration, subject to the following conditions: 

(1) Under no circumstances may the selected arbitrators consider whether the

manner of selecting employees for the seven new Dream Schools was consistent

with the school district’s obligations under the consent decree. In other words,

the arbitrators may not grant any award to involuntarily transferred employees on

the basis that they were not selected for Dream Schools.

Case 3:05-cv-02828-WHA Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

(2) With respect to teachers that were selected for the Dream Schools, the arbitrator

can decide if the terms and conditions of their employment violated the CBAs or

other agreements negotiated between the parties. Be aware that the decree fully

intended that Dream School teachers would be required to work longer hours per

week than other teachers and no award can or should be based on that difference,

except to the extent that pay was not adjusted accordingly.

(3) The arbitration proceedings must be completed by JUNE 30, 2006.

(4) The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce (or vacate) any award.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02828-WHA Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 Page 5 of 5