Santa Monica College Faculty Ass'n v. Santa Monica Community College District
197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 71
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Three part-time Santa Monica College faculty (Strathearn, Moshiri, Druckman) had “associate faculty” status after five consecutive satisfactory semesters under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Article 6.6.8 of the CBA allowed revocation of associate status for reasons including being “guilty of misconduct as defined by Education Code section 87732,” and required written notice before termination of associate status.
- The district revoked the three instructors’ associate status, sent written notices citing misconduct, but presented no evidence at arbitration asserting that section 87665 barred judicial review of the merits of its decision.
- Arbitrators held the CBA’s use of “guilty of misconduct” required evidentiary support and awarded reinstatement plus back pay; the district sought to vacate the awards in superior court.
- The trial court vacated the awards, reasoning section 87665 (district may terminate temporary employees at its discretion; decision not subject to judicial review) trumped the negotiated CBA protections; the faculty association appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to vacate Strathearn’s arbitration award given filing/service deadlines | Faculty: District missed statutory deadlines to file/serve petition to vacate, so court lacked jurisdiction | District: Various equitable and case-law exceptions excuse or permit review despite timing | Held: District’s petition and responses were untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to vacate Strathearn’s award (district missed mandatory deadlines) |
| Whether arbitrators exceeded their powers by requiring evidentiary proof of misconduct to revoke associate status under the CBA | Faculty: “Guilty of misconduct” implies proof; arbitrators’ construction is rational and derived from the CBA | District: Article 6.6.8 requires only written notice; arbitrator imposed extra procedural burden conflicting with statute | Held: Arbitrators’ interpretation that a finding of “guilty” implies some evidentiary basis is not irrational and will be upheld |
| Whether Education Code §87665 (unreviewable discretionary termination of temporary faculty) preempts §87482.9 (mandatory bargaining over earning/retaining annual reappointment rights) and CBA terms | Faculty: §87482.9 is a later, more specific statute governing reappointment rights negotiated into the CBA and therefore controls revocation of reappointment status | District: §87665 gives districts plenary, unreviewable authority to terminate temporary faculty and thus controls | Held: §87482.9 governs negotiated reappointment rights and is harmonizable with §87665; where district revokes reappointment status (not a termination), it must follow CBA procedures negotiated under §87482.9; §87482.9 controls if conflict exists |
| Whether Round Valley requires finding in favor of the district (i.e., statutory termination power trumps CBA protections) | Faculty: Round Valley is distinguishable because it involved a K–12 statute and EERA, not two Education Code provisions including a specific bargaining mandate | District: Round Valley shows Education Code statutory power overrides CBA provisions | Held: Round Valley is distinguishable; here the Education Code expressly makes reappointment rights a mandatory bargaining subject (§87482.9), so Round Valley does not mandate ruling for district |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education v. Round Valley Teachers Association, 13 Cal.4th 269 (Cal. 1996) (arbitration award conflicting with Education Code may permit judicial review)
- Richey v. AutoNation, 60 Cal.4th 909 (Cal. 2015) (standard of review for whether arbitrator exceeded powers)
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (arbitration awards not reviewable for simple legal error)
- Abers v. Rohrs, 217 Cal.App.4th 1199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (filing/service deadlines for petitions to vacate arbitration awards are jurisdictional)
- Stryker v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., 100 Cal.App.4th 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (distinction between termination of temporary employees and protections for other faculty categories under Education Code)