United Teachers v. Los Angeles Unified School District
54 Cal. 4th 504
| Cal. | 2012Background
- UTLA petitioned to compel arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement after the District approved Locke High School’s charter conversion.
- UTLA alleged violations of Article XII-B (charter conversion procedures) including failure to present the full charter, insufficient review and disclosure to employees/UTLA, and inadequate employment-condition disclosures.
- District argued the challenged provisions conflict with Education Code and are therefore not arbitrable; petition to compel arbitration should be denied.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding that arbitrability turns on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, not on merits or preemption by Education Code.
- California Supreme Court held that arbitrability can be defeated where the CBA provisions directly conflict with the Education Code, remanding for UTLA to identify specific preempted provisions; no authority to compel arbitration that would annul, replace, or set aside Education Code provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the challenged CBA provisions conflict with the Education Code so as to preclude arbitration? | UTLA argues no need to resolve conflict at arbitration; arbitration should proceed. | District argues provisions conflict with Education Code and must be precluded. | Yes, if direct conflict would annul or replace Education Code provisions. |
| Can an arbitrator or arbitration process compel Charter petitions to follow nonstatutory steps or rescind charter approvals? | Arbitrator should decide enforceability and remedies. | Education Code controls charter approval; arbitration cannot override it. | Arbitration cannot grant relief that annuls or supersedes charter statutes. |
| Is the arbitrability issue within the court’s purview or the arbitrator’s? | Issue not preempted by Education Code and falls within arbitration scope. | Issue for court because it concerns preemption by Education Code. | Arbitrability is a court question where preemption is at stake; remand for specification of provisions. |
| What remedy, if any, is appropriate if some provisions are preempted while others are not? | Full compliance with CBA and UTLA rights. | Remedies should not delay or alter charter petition process; rescission not permissible. | Remand to identify nonpreempted provisions and determine enforceable relief; avoid delaying charter process. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Mateo City Sch. Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 33 Cal.3d 850 (Cal. 1983) (non-supersession framework for Education Code and EERA; negotiability vs. statutory preemption)
- Round Valley Teachers Assn. v. Board of Ed., 13 Cal.4th 269 (Cal. 1996) (arbitration may be vacated when it enforces preempted provisions; preemption analysis proper)
- Fontana Teachers Assn. v. Fontana Unified Sch. Dist., 201 Cal.App.3d 1517 (Cal. App. 1988) (preemption of probationary reelection by Education Code; not arbitrable)
- United Steelworkers v. Board of Ed., 162 Cal.App.3d 823 (Cal. App. 1984) (arbitration cannot override mandatory Education Code provisions; certain matters excluded)
- California Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n v. State of California, 142 Cal.App.4th 198 (Cal. App. 2006) (doubtful arbitrability resolved in favor of arbitration; distinguishable on EERA scope)
- Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc., 56 Cal.2d 169 (Cal. 1961) (Steelworkers doctrine: arbitrate disputes about contract meaning unless expressly excluded)