Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/65/913.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 16:02:36
Document Index: 104956154

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13582', '§ 13601', '§ 13580', '§ 13582', '§ 13602', '§ 13584', '§ 3541']

California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1977) :: :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. App. 3d › Volume 65 › California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1977)
California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1977)
(Opinion by Morris, J., with Kaufman, Acting P. J., and Tamura, J., concurring.) [65 Cal. App. 3d 914]
Appellants, Coachella Valley Unified School District, Board of Trustees, and Eugene Tucker, Superintendent of the District [65 Cal. App. 3d 916] (hereafter District), appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, granting the application of respondent, California School Employees Association (hereafter Association), for a writ of mandate compelling the District to pay fringe benefits to all of its classified employees in an amount equal to the highest level then being paid by any one of five districts included in the unified District.
During the early fall of 1973, the first year of unified operation, representatives of the District board met with representatives of employee groups in the District and agreed upon the amount of health insurance premiums to be paid by the new district for the fiscal year July 1, 1973, through June 30, 1974. Pursuant to agreement, the governing board of the new district passed a resolution on October 24, 1973, adopting this agreement, which provided for the District to contribute $341.70 annually for two years toward health insurance for each employee in the District, except for employees previously with the Mecca school district. The $341.70 contribution covered the entire premium for major medical coverage for the individual employee. For employees from the Mecca school district, the agreement provided that the District would continue to provide coverage for the employees' [65 Cal. App. 3d 917] families. This required a contribution of $505.40 annually for Mecca school district employees. Under the terms of this agreement all employees continued to receive for this two-year period the same or more coverage than they had received prior to the unification.
"Persons employed in positions not requiring certification qualifications [classified employees] in districts, all or part of whose territory is included in a unification of districts[,] shall continue as employees of the unified school district for not less than two years, and shall not, by reason of any unification, be deprived of any benefit which they would have had had the unification not taken place. In determining the rights of such employees, their salaries, accumulated leaves, and other rights shall be determined as of the date the unification election was conducted. No [65 Cal. App. 3d 918] increase in benefits not previously conferred, granted by the governing board of any district, all or part of whose territory is included in a unification of districts, after such unification election, shall be binding on the governing board of the unified district, except that benefits granted in the districts comprising the new unified district which does not become effective until the second succeeding first day of July shall be binding on the governing board of the unified district. Nothing herein contained shall preclude the governing board of the unified school district from making any reasonable reassignment of the duties of such employees. The governing board of the unified district shall establish a system of uniform salaries, employee benefits and working conditions for employees performing like services in conformity with the provisions of this section." (Italics added.)
[2] In construing a statute, the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature in order to effectuate the purpose of the law, and if possible, should interpret the statutory language so as to give significance to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal. 2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672]; see also People v. Superior Court (Smith), 70 Cal. 2d 123, 133 [74 Cal. Rptr. 294, 449 P.2d 230].) [65 Cal. App. 3d 919]
[3] Also, a statute should be construed with reference to the entire statutory system of which it forms a part in such a way that harmony may be achieved among its parts. (Prunty v. Bank of America, 37 Cal. App. 3d 430, 436 [112 Cal. Rptr. 370].)
Section 13584.3 is found in the immediate context of those provisions of the law dealing with the rights and duties of classified employees. Generally, the law provides that the governing boards shall fix and prescribe the duties (§ 13582) and salaries (§ 13601); that classified employees shall receive not less than the compensation and benefits applicable to their classification (§ 13580.5), and may not be required to [65 Cal. App. 3d 920] perform duties which are not fixed and prescribed for the position by the governing board (§ 13582.1). It is further provided that the board shall fix annual salaries for the ensuing school year at the time of publication of the annual budget. The law does not prohibit a reduction of salaries by the board; it does provide that increases may be conditional upon the actual receipt by the district of anticipated revenues (§ 13602).
In drafting section 13584.3, the Legislature was well aware that districts participating in a unification procedure would have established salary schedules for classified employees at levels that varied from district to district, based upon the financial condition of the individual districts. fn. 1 This awareness is demonstrated by the first two sentences of the section. The first sentence, in addition to guaranteeing the employees continued employment for two years, guarantees that they will not be deprived of any benefit they would have received in the old district. The second sentence provides that the employees' rights are to be determined as of the date of the unification election. The following sentence makes it clear that no increase after the election shall be binding upon the unified district, except in a contingency not here applicable. (§ 13584.3.) In other words, these provisions all relate to the first two years after the unification election. No employees are to be dismissed, and no employee is to be reduced in salary or other benefit even though they would be subject to reasonable reassignment of duties.
Presumably the Legislature was also well aware of the requirement of Education Code section 13602 that the governing board fix the annual salaries at the time of publication of the budget. Consequently, it would have had in mind that salaries and other benefits were fixed in contemplation of the revenues that were to be available to the district for the ensuing school year. The single exception to the freezing of benefits on the date of the election, is where the unification does not become [65 Cal. App. 3d 921] effective until the second succeeding first day of July. This means that the individual districts would have prepared the budget and considered their revenues before increasing benefits; it would not be an increase in contemplation of unification, which the Legislature obviously wanted to avoid.
This interpretation is consistent with the legislative purpose, the legislative scheme, and provides a fiscally sound transition, without impairing the rights of any employees as they were entitled prior to unification. [65 Cal. App. 3d 922]
[5] Neither the Constitution, nor any statutory mandate requiring uniformity, prohibits a school board from making reasonable classifications. In Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal. 2d 753 [112 P.2d 229], the California Supreme Court considered the extent to which uniformity is required in fixing the salaries of teachers under Education Code section 13506. fn. 2 The court stated, "'It must be conceded that, within the limits fixed by the School Code, the Board has discretionary control over the salaries of teachers. (Fidler v. Board of Trustees, 112 Cal. App. 296 ... ; Abraham v. Sims, 2 Cal. (2d) 698 ....) However, it must also be conceded that the legislature had enjoined on such Boards, within reasonable limits, the principle of uniformity of treatment as to salary for those performing like services with like experience. This same limitation exists in the rules and regulations of the appellant Board. This limitation, however, does not prevent the Board from making reasonable classifications. There can be no doubt that the Board may reasonably classify between teachers with teaching experience in San Francisco and those with teaching experience outside.'" (Fry v. Board of Education, supra, 17 Cal. 2d 753, 757-758.) It has been held that the same section of the Education Code permits a reasonable classification brought about by policy changes because of employment needs. (Sayre v. Board of Trustees, 9 Cal. App. 3d 488, 491 [88 Cal. Rptr. 355]; Lawe v. El Monte School Dist., 267 Cal. App. 2d 20, 22-23 [72 Cal. Rptr. 554].)
The obvious purpose of provisions requiring uniformity is to prevent favoritism or other arbitrary action on the part of the school boards. (Sayre v. Board of Trustees, supra, at p. 491.) Exact uniformity, without regard to organizational or administrative needs of a district, would be irreconcilable with the prudent management of a district. [65 Cal. App. 3d 923]
As the court stated in Aebli v. Board of Education, 62 Cal. App. 2d 706, 757 [145 P.2d 601]: "Obviously, any time there is a change of policy, it creates a lack of uniformity in the sense that teachers who become members of the department while one policy is in effect are treated differently from teachers who become members of the department while a new policy is in effect. Such lack of 'uniformity' is inevitable as a school board progresses with the needs of various periods and accordingly changes its policy." As the court went on to point out, the alternative, in order to secure "uniformity" would be to change the service status rating of teachers with the district every time the members of the board determined to change policy. This would of course violate the rights of those teachers who attained status under a preexisting policy.
Because of the construction here adopted, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of the agreement entered into by respondent as a result of the meet and confer process pursuant to Education Code section 13085. (Repealed and replaced by Gov. Code, §§ 3541.3 and 3543.3 eff. July 1, 1976.)
FN 1. The recent decision of the California Supreme Court holding the state public school financing system invalid does not affect the interpretation in reference to the existing system of financing. As the court specifically stated, "Obviously, any judgment invalidating the existing system of public school financing should make clear that the existing system is to remain operable until an appropriate new system ... can be put into effect." (Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 619 [96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241, 41 A.L.R.3d 1187].)
FN 2. Section 13506 of the Education Code provides in pertinent part: "Effective 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. Employees shall not be placed in different classifications on the schedule, nor paid different salaries, solely on the basis of the respective grade levels in which such employees serve. ..."