*1 No. 14010. Third Dist. Dec. [Civ. 1974.] al.,
SAN JUAN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION et Plaintiffs and v. Respondents, DISTRICT,
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL Defendant and Appellant. No. 13924. Third Dist. Dec.
[Civ. 1974.] al., YUBA CITY UNIFIED EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et Plaintiffs and v. Respondents,
BOARD TRUSTEES THE YUBA CITY OF OF DISTRICT, UNIFIED SCHOOL Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel Heinrich, John Counsel, B. and Robert County County Galgani, Deputy Counsel, for Defendant ánd Civ. No. 14010. Appellant Buckner, Counsel, Edward F. Heenan, Marianne County Deputy Counsel, and Keith Breon for Defendant County in Civ. Appellant No. 13924.
Robert G. Walters as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and in No. 13924. Appellant
Karlton, Vanderlaan, Blease & Lawrence K. Karl ton and Coleman A. Blease Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Opinion JANES, J. decision, These consolidated for involve appeals, separate as to the of a to “meet disputes employer’s obligation and confer” with of certificated representatives employee organizations Code, under the of the Winton Act et (Ed. § provisions seq.).1 1A11citations of code Code unless otherwise sections herein will refer to the Education indicated. *8 case, and the of a teachers’ association
In the each complaint upon council which of the certificated chairman represented employee court tried the cause without a and the jury superior organization,2 adverse the contentions relief declaratory generally granted in the the defendant school teachers’ district. Additionally, employer, District, Unified School the action the Yuba City judgment against of from conduct the district’s board trustees permanently enjoined Each district with the court’s declaration of school inconsistent rights. it. from the against appeals judgment Act
Winton to each we To of the facts relevant facilitate appeal, comprehension > of Act which of those the Winton rights quote portions parties depend:3
“It of this Winton is the article promote purpose [the Act] of and rela- improvement personnel management employer-employee tions school in the State of California within by systems public a uniform school basis recognizing right public providing of their own choice and be join represented employees organizations such in their by organizations professional employment relationships voice school to afford certificated employees public employers contained herein shall in formulation of educational Nothing policy. of this code and the rules and be deemed to other provisions supersede which establish and school regulate regulations public employers for other or service or which tenure or a merit civil system provide This article is relations. methods employer-employee administering tеnure, merit, instead, and other intended, civil service strengthen relations methods of through administering employer-employee of communication of uniform and methods establishment orderly are which between they employers (§ 13080.) employed....” 2The is section 13085 to meet certificated council the body designated by employee there is more and confer with the school in district where any district’s board governing association). The certificated than one teachers’ certificated employee organization (e.g., is organizations. council employee qualifying employee composed representatives relief, we look declaratory are from the injunctive 3Since these granting appeals 2041, 1965, (Stats. ch. Act the Winton
to the current of relevant language provisions 1412, 1971, 1413, (Callie 438). v. Board Stats. ch. amended Stats. chs. and by 440]; v. (1969) Brophy Employees 18-19 Cal.Rptr. Supervisors Cal.App.3d [81 939].) The P.2d same (1945) 459-460 Retirement System Cal.App.2d the time of [162 Other amendments of were force judgments. amendments in at are here issue. Winton Act involve not provisions *9 shall have the to their organizations right represent “Employee in their members relations with school employment public employers . . . .” include all 13083.) “The of shall matters (§ representation relаtions, to conditions and relating employment employer-employee but not limited to other and hours and terms including, wages, conditions (§ 13084.) employment.”
“A. school such it or employer, designate public representatives may , . . . meet shall and confer with of certificated and representatives classified with to all employee[4]5organizations upon request regard matters to conditions and rela employment relating employer-employee tions, addition, and in shall meet and confer with representatives certificated employee organizations representing employees upon [5i with to to the definition request regard relating procedures educational and determination of content courses objectives, curricula, textbooks, the selection of and of the instruction other aspects al to the extent such matters within are the discretion of program school or board (§ 13085.) under the law....” public employer governing (Italics added.)
“ and ‘Meet confer’ means that a school or such public employer, as it and representatives may designate, representatives employee shall have the mutual to organizations obligation exchange freely information, and make and сonsider opinions, proposals; recommendations under in a conscientious effort to orderly procedures reach resolution, written or agreement by regulation, policy board such (§ recommendations.” subd. governing effectuating (d).)
“A shall meet confer employer representatives or the certificated council employee organizations employee pursuant 4“Classified of school districts are all than employees other those employees required to hold state a certificate or credential. Certificated of school are districts teachers, those to hold a state certificate or credential and include employees required (Comment, supervisory personnel, administrators.” Alternative California’s Act, 1965-1974, Collective Teachers: The Winton Bargaining and Proposals Change for for (1974) 5 16.) Pacific L.J. fn. 1412, 1413) (chs. 5Both school bench districts at stress the fact that Statutes of 1970 substituted word in section words “all matters” “procedures” immediately preceding phrase definition of educational “relating objectives herein, ----” As will subsequently appear amendment does not control our disposition not these since 13085 which does affected section change appeals portion embrace the matters claimed the “meet and confer" be within process. plaintiffs The 1970 matters amendment of section 13085 did not alter “all phrase conditions . . which is the relations. employment employer-employee governing f on these phrase appeals. *10 13085 with for the resolution
to Section to a procedure regard include and shall which disagreements may factfinding adopt persistent a rules and such procedure regulations establishing procedure, In to the shall be mutually acceptable parties meeting conferring. the the cannot on a for resolution the event parties agree procedure them, at the of one of shall the disagreements, parties, request persistent a committee of three one refer to any disagreement persistent persons, the school one selected the selected by organiza- by employee employer, council, be, and in turn tion or the certificated as case may employee select the third member. The committee shall those shall report persons to at a its meeting parties public parties. findings a to the at committee recommendations public may parties report of both Such written findings meeting agreement prior parties. not be on the (§ 13087.1.) and recommendations shall binding parties!” “ a between the ‘Persistent means parties disagreement’ disagreement that has not been to this article by meeting conferring required resolved to the mutual satisfaction of such through meeting parties within reasonable time after initial a conferring period which shall be not less than by days, except presentation proposals, mutual consent.” subd. (§ (e).)
“A shall reasonable rules and school employer adopt regula- public under this for the administration of relations tions employer-employee . . . . include . . such other article. rules may provisions [If] [S]uch matters as are to out this article.” necessary carry purposes 13087.) (§ not be construed as
“The of this article shall enactment making Code[6] to the Labor of Section 923 of public applicable provisions a not construed and shall be school prohibiting employees to all the final decision from regard making employer (§ 13088.) 13085.” under Section matters specified those business 6Labor Code section 923 “guarantees employed private purely within the of the National local nature and which does not ‘affect commerce’ meaning no or Act 151 et that there shall be interference § Labor Relаtions U.S.C. seq.], [29 workers, restraint on guarantees private employer rights [such] [citation], and to in collective right organize, bargaining engage benefits.” in concerted activities to secure participate Federation legitimate employment (California 514, 521 (1969) v. Sch. 272 Cal.App.2d Teachers Oxnard Elementary [77 497].) Cal.Rptr. San Juan Case Civil No.
(3 14010) 1. Facts in San Juan Case In the San Juan Teachers Association (“Association”), May a certificated council (“CEC”), represented by employee proposed board of the San Juan Unified (“Board”) School District *11 governing a master (“District”) for the 1971-1972 school The agreement year. was certain Clauses” proposed agreement prefaced by “Governing to all of its Clauses were as applied provisions. Governing follows:
“1. The Board of Education of the San Juan Unified School District the Certificated Council as the exclusive recognizes Employees represen- tative of all verified certificated within the San employee organizations Juan Unified School District.
“2. The San Juan Teachers Association that the Board of recognizes Education has the direct, on responsibility authority manage behalf of the all the and activities of the public, San Juan operations Unified School District to law; the full extent authorized by provided such shall be exercised responsibility the Board authority by with the this conformity provisions Agreement,
“3. The Board of Education declares its intent to maintain the hereby reached, on the various items in this Master agreements Agreement, district for a one from their date of policy year period adoption by Board of Education.
“4. The members of the San Juan Teachers Association declare hereby their intent to their services within their provide individual professional areas of in accordance with this and with other competence, Agreement District Policies and the laws of the State California. adopted “5. Amendments, modifications or other alterations of the changes, terms of this Master after its the Board of Agreement, adoption by Association, Education and its be by may proposed by ratification Board or the Association in order to meet emergencies, comply or to effect other deemed statutory provisions, changes important initiate the term of this during Agreement. amendments, or other alterations
“6. No modifications changes, administrative be made an terms of this Master Agreement may Association; officer of the District or except represеntative to the attention of the Board that such officer or may representative bring need of Education and the Certificated Council the Employees apparent for of a of this change portion Agreement.
“7. held between the As a result meetings designated representative of the Board of Education and the San Juan Certificated Employees Council, that the clauses and the attached it has been agreed foregoing Juan Board of Education Master be submitted to the San Agreement 13080-13090 in accordance with Education Code Sections adoption [the and District No. 4116.2 rules Winton regulations Policy [Board Act] to be discussed (Italics added.) infra]” and confer on to meet
The CEC Board’s requested representative *12 Clauses, its Board refused to but the permit Governing proposed would not CEC that the Board to do so and informed the representative issue, that use be the CEC clauses. To resolve this requested agree of 13087.1 for the resolution forth in section of the set made procedures however, in Board, declined to The participate disagreements. persistent such procedures. one for master was agreement provisions proposed
Among in the District’s creation and a counseling program staffing on to furnish schools (seventh intermediate guidance eighth grades) educational or individualized basis to students who an presented Association, CEC, through originally disciplinaiy problems. counselors who be handled full-time proposed program had a credential and successfully completed counseling possessed studies, who would be selected units of faculty counseling administrators of the schools served. they
However, 1971, the at a Board on Board adopted meeting August to act as “teacher-adviser” teachers were part-time program obtained their counselors and need not have teachers and part-time toward credential, were at least to be they working although counseling to have no school faculties were the teacher-adviser it. Under program, on its decision The Board made selection of counselors. role in the the CEC that, same the fact at the meeting, notwithstanding August be of individual schools that the staffs had given option proposed counselor or the full-time either the teacher-adviser program using and had that the matter be the program, requested subject meeting and conferring. months earlier (on the Board had 1970),
Eighteen February reissued certain rules and which had been regulations previously it to its relations with certificated Those adopted by govern employees. rules and included a restatement of . . . regulations “rights specified certificated Code, Education sections 13080 to 13088. . . .” employees by One of those as described in the rules and was as rights, regulations, follows: “The certificated representation by employee organiza- tions includes all matters conditions and relating employment relations, to, but not hours, limited employer-employee including, wages, and other terms and conditions of and all matters employment relating definition educational the determination of the content objectives, curricula, courses and the selection of textbooks and other aspects the instructional to the extent such matters are program within the discretion of the Board of Education.” (Italics added.)
It is self-evident that the Board arrived at this definition of “the scope sections 13084 and 13085 as a whole in representation” by construing accordance with settled rules of construction.7 At the time the statutory Board reissued the rules and section 13085 as first enacted regulations, was still in force and included “all matters to the definition of educational within the “meet and confer” objectives process [etc.]” *13 insofar as 1965, certificated were concerned. ch. (Stats. 2041.) an 23, amendment of section 13085 effective November Subsequently, by 1970, 1412, the Statutes of 1970 (chs. substituted 1413) “procedures” “all matters” before the to the definition of educational phrase “relating However, . . . .” the described, time all the events above objectives the Board had not its rules and to make its yet changed regulations definition of “the conform with section 13085 as scope representation” amended.8 been rebuffed in their to the
Having attempts subject Governing and Clauses the counselor to the “meet and confer” the program process, Association and the chairman of the CEC sued the District for injunctive 1, 1971, relief. On October the trial court a declaratory granted District, which the in its preliminary injunction required implementation of a “to those who part-time counseling program, employ only people have the basic credential with at least six units of counselling training 7See, Cal.Jur.2d, Statutes, 117, 45 section 626-627. pages
8Nor had the Board made such the time of change trial. will forward with
and absolutely guarantee they go emphatically which to the full were Board. their credential”—limitations satisfactory trial was taken that order. at the of the No from appeal Subsequently, 1972, the relief issues in in the San Juan case declaratory April plaintiffs the no to a made obtain injunction; attempt permanent judgment against injunctive the San Juan Unified School District is silent as relief.9
2. and Contentions Judgment
in San Juan Case alia, held, “While inter as follows: declaratory judgment only in Board decide the first instance whether or not there will be an may intermediate school once that has determination counselling program, made, all of the been matters relating implementation program, to be used in including qualifications personnel program, Act.” (Italics are within the Winton scope representation original.) trial satisfied with the court’s declaration
Although prefatory to the the sole decide whether there reserved Board power that the the District contends court would be counseling program,10 further that the erred when it held (inferentially, representation of certificated extends “all matters employees) including qualifications implementation program, . . to be used in the .” We District’s reject personnel program. contention. of a rule that the several statute
“It is a cardinal of construction parts harmonized, so must be read when reasonably possible, together v. intent of to discover and effect to the (Ingram Legislature.” give 447 P.2d Justice Court Cal.2d (1968) Cal.Rptr. [73 *14 is determined 36 A.L.R.3d intent behind the 1391].) legislation “[T]he . .” v. of read as a whole . . from the the statute (Wingfield language Moreover, 209, 619].) 219 Fielder 29 (1972) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d [105 usual, effect to statutes to the should ordinary “courts give ‘according Witkin, Remedies, 9See, (2d ed. 1970) 2 Procedure Provisional sections California 47-48, 1496-1497, 106, 1536. and section pages page brief, us to the CEC ask expand and chairman of 10In Association plaintiffs’ in the first instance court’s that the Board decide “only may the trial declaration upon whether . We . .” or there will intermediate school counselling program. not be an modification, such decline to order (§ 13088) since declaration is correct so far as goes it Witkin, did not from the (6 (2d plaintiffs appeal judgment Cal. Procedure ed. 1971) §§216-217, 4206-4208). pp. Appeal,
247 ” them.’ v. (Merrill import language employed framing 907, Motor Vehicles 89, 71 Cal.2d 918 (1969) Department Cal.Rptr. [80 458 P.2d 33].) words of a statute their given “[I]f ordinary are free from the courts will popular meaning reasonably uncertainty, Fielder, no look further to ascertain its v. at meaning.” (Wingfield supra, 219.) p. 13084,
In section Act Winton defines the generally scope and in section 13085 the act representation; defines the scope in the context of the “meet and confer” representation as process. Insofar here 5, (see fn. both sections pertinеnt use same broad supra), “all matters conditions definition—namely, relating employment relations . . . .” also (See The mere employer-employee 13087.1.) § fact that section 13084 declares that such “matters” include but are not limited to hours and other terms and conditions of “wages, employment” in no that way suggests representation purposes section 13085 has a more restricted meaning.
When sections 13084 and 13085 are read 13080, with section together to certificated reasonable applied construction is employees, only the formulation of educational is a matter policy conditions relations, employment for section employer-employee 13080 states that one of the of the Winton Act expressly is very purposes “to afford certificated a voice in the formulation of education- employees al Grasko v. Los (See Board Education policy.” 31 (1973) Angeles City 290, 302 334]; Torrance Education Cal.App.3d Assn. v. Cal.Rptr. [107 Board Education 589, (1971) 639]; Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [98 Federation Teachers v. Oxnard Sch. (1969) Elementary California 514, 533, 539 497].) Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [77
When the amended section 13085 Legislature by substituting for “all matters” before the “procedures” phrase “relating definition of educational chs. (Stats. 1413)—a objectives” not determinative of these fn. did not (see phrase appeals supra)—it amend the declaration in section 13080 that a of the Winton Act purpose is “to afford certificated a voice in the formulation of educational (Italics We therefore conclude that added.) “educa policy.” tional was intended to have a more policy” Legislature pervasive than “educational since the latter meaning objectives,” especially phrase is used in section 13085 in association with “the determination of the *15 curricula, content textbooks, of courses and the selection of and other ” the instructional . . . . (Italics Torrance added.) (See, aspects program of 248 593; Education, 21 at v. Board
Education Assn. Cal.App.3d p. supra, of Sch., 272 Oxnard v. Federation Elementary supra, Teachers California Cal.App.2d at 533.) p. voice” “a such the act that We only gives employees emphasize themselves on meeting subjects they may express by school 13088 reserves section employer public conferring; of final decision. power of sections
Thus, construction a literal and integrated upon to 13080, 13084, 13085, it that all matters is manifest relating qualification counseling program—including implementation of, as section for, counselors themselves criteria and selection (except 1070 be necessarily may qualifications applicable)—are prescribing of “all matters within the broad included inherently scope 13084, relations” (§§ conditions employer-employee employment determinations not involves 13085). only Implementation program also but counselors) full-time versus of educational part-time policy (e.g., staff conditions of the will affect the teaching general employment from the classroom students temporary special removing problem court, Indeed, in the trial the District has here as ized guidance. has an that the teacher-adviser conceded impact program from full-time it involves a shift of teachers because conditions working and it counseling, requires teaching part-time teaching part-time load teachers that other being dropped teaching pick up teacher-counselors.11 of the words course, literal that meaning
We recognize, “[t]he or to effect results to avoid absurd of a statute be give disregarded may Code, 11Under (Gov. Act Meyers-Milias-Brown 3500 et § seq.)—which applies covered, not public are employees, by specific legisla tion—the size of caseloads to social workers is within thе assigned that meet and requirement confer with public employers representatives employee hours, organizations (Gov. and other terms regarding “wages, and conditions of employment” Code, Assn., 3505). (Los § County Local 660 v. Los Angeles Employees County of Cal.App.3d 1, 4-5 (1973) Angeles 625].) Cal.Rptr. [108 hours, and other terms and phrase “wages, conditions of in the employment” Milias- Brown Act is Meyers- taken verbatim from a in the federal Labor provision (29 Relations Act U.S.C. 141 et Management § seq.) defining scope mandatory “ 158, (29 collective (d)). U.S.C. § subd. The federal definition ‘. . bargaining . has been given generous almost interpretation, affect an including anything might employee ” Union, (Social in his Workers’ Local 535 v. A employment lameda relationship.’ County 382, 461, (1974) 11 Cal.3d Dept. 453].) 521 P.2d It includes Cal.Rptr. [113 Welfare 525, (9th work loads. v. employee 1968) Stores Co. N.L.R.B. Cir. (Gallenkamp F.2d 4; accord, fn. (1974) Fire Union v. 12 Cal.3d Fighters City 619-620 Vallejo 971].) 526 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [116
249 that, manifest in the of the statute’s purposes light legislative history, from its considered as a whole.” v. Brown (Silver provisions appear However, 841, 609, 63 Cal.2d 845 409 P.2d (1966) 689].) Cal.Rptr. [48 in the of the Winton Act12 indicates that the history nothing Legislature failed to “all matters sweeping import phrase appreciate to” 13084 in sections and those words their 13085—giving ordinary meaning.
To the since school teachers in California have nо contrary, or to strike Los v. (Grasko right bargain collectively Angeles City Education, 302; Board 31 at Los supra, Cal.App.3d p. Angeles of Unified School Dist. v. United 24 Teachers 142 (1972) Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [100 Sch., 806]; Federation Teachers v. Oxnard Elementary supra, California of 521, 523; 272 at Teachers Assn. v. Board Cal.App.2d pp. Berkeley of Education 254 660, 671 (1967) see Almond 515]; Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [62 v. 32, Sacramento 276 35-36 (1969) County Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [80 of it is reasonable to conclude that 518]), the Winton Act represents not disabilities, to end but to for those legislative attempt compensate thus certificated Federation Teachers pacifying employees (California of Sch., 521-522, v. Oxnard at 539-540), Elementary supra, pp. by granting such a broad in representation “recognition teachers, because of their and dedication to the welfare expertise of the schools and their are well suited to make a pupils, particularly constructive contribution to the formulation of policy” [educational] Education, v. Los (Grasko 302; Board at also see Angeles City supra, p. Sch., Federation Teachers v. Oxnard at Elementary supra, California 531-533). pp. “ ‘Teachers are earnest and devoted with a people degree high know children and what professional training experiеnce. They goes on in the classroom and in the A board should learning process. lay make full use of their and their in willingness, knowledge experience matters of vital concern to both. Their voices should be heard and their recommendations considered. This should be thoughtfully rudimentary this, in If boards and aren’t good procedure. superintendents doing they ” should. . . .’ Federation Teachers v. Oxnard (California Elementary Sch., 272 at 539.) supra, p. Cal.App.2d 12The legislative reasons for enactment of the Winton Act are history comprehen discussed in sively (1967) Teachers Assn. v. Board 254 Berkeley Education Cal.App.2d 660, at pages 663-664 515], Federation Cal.Rptr. Teachers v. Oxnard [62 California Elementary Sch., 520-524, 529-533, at supra, Cal.App.2d pages Westminster Sch. Dist. (1972) v. Court Superior 388], at 127-129 Cal.App.3d pages Cal.Rptr. [104 Education, Grasko v. Los Board Angeles City at 301-304. supra, Cal.App.3d pages California’s under the act is experience summarized in the law review cited comment (5 supra 707-712). footnote Pacific L.J.
250
Based the Board’s aforementioned failure to its upon change rules and to conform with the 1970 amendment of section regulations 13085, the trial court made as No. 2 of its paragraph declaratory did, “The Board and here judgment following holding: may, expand of its Policies and mandatory Procedures scope representation by [i.e., rules and the Winton Act regulations], broad providing only (See Sacramento guidelines. 22, Local County Employees Organization, etc. Union v. Sacramento 424, 28 (1972) County 430.)” Cal.App.3d of (Citation in declared, court also No. 5 original.) The. of the paragraph Board judgment, may adopt policies “[t]he procedures bind it to meet and confer all matters in to which the Board respect has discretion to act.”
The District contends that the 2No. and No. 5 holdings paragraphs are erroneous. We Quite judgment from our agree. apart conclusion that the Board’s mere failure to amend its rules and was not substantial evidence that it regulations intended to expand of Estate mandatory (see Teed 112 scope representation (1952) 638, 644 P.2d we 54]), that, are of the Cal.App.2d as a [247 opinion law, matter of the Board has no power expand scope delineated the Winton Act. representation “A school district is an of limited it exercise agency authority; may those statute.” etc. only (Yreka School Dist. v. powers granted by etc. School Dist. 666, 227 (1964) 670 Siskiyou Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [39 “A 112].) board of a school district has no to enact a governing authority rule or which alters or the terms of a regulation enlarges legislative enactment.” v. (Renken School Dist. 207 (1962) Compton City 106, 114 see 347]; also Grasko v. Los Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [24 Angeles Education, Board 31 300-301; City at supra, Cal.App.3d pp. Berkeley Education, Teachers Assn. v. Board 254 at supra, Cal.App.2d pp. 672-673.) The Winton Act is an innovative statute (Grasko v. Los Angeles City Education, Board 31 301-302, 306; at Westmin- supra, Cal.App.3d pp. ster Sch. Dist. v. Court 120, 127, (1972) 28. 129 Superior Cal.App.3d [104 388]; Federation Teachers v. Oxnard Cal.Rptr. Elementary California Sch., 523, 535, 272 at defines which itself 539-540) supra, Cal.App.2d pp. representation applicable public 13080, 13084, 13085, (§§ 13087.1). in a statute expressions “[A]ffirmative a new rule of all not within their introducing imply negative purview.” (Johnston v. Baker 167 Cal. 264 P. (1914) see Brintle v. 86]; [139 Board Education 43 87 (1941) P.2d 440].) Cal.App.2d [110 Moreover, to the of a statute,] “where exists uncertainty meaning [as consideration that will flow from a be may given consequences v. Stockton (1961) (Jaynes Cal.App.2d particular interpretation.” schools of this state are a matter of “The 49].) Cal.Rptr. [14 *18 . . . .” v. statewide rather than local or concern (Hall City municipal of 47 P.2d One of the Cal.2d 179 (1956) 574].) express [302 Taft of the Winton Act is to “a basis for purposes provide recognizing uniform the of in school to ... be ... their right public employees represented with school professional employment relationships public employers . . . .” Such be (§ 13080.) (Italics would nonexistent added.) uniformity the state if school districts were free to or not to throughout expand saw fit. The expand mandatory scope they representation, very lack of would be of unrest on the of those uniformity productive part school whose had not been public scope representation their expanded by employers.
In that the Board can holding expand mandatory scope the trial court representation, relied Sacramento erroneously upon 22 County Local etc. Employees Union v. Organization, County of Sacramento, supra, That case Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [104 619]. arose under the Code, Act 3500 et Meyers-Milias-Brown (Gov. § seq.; see fn. Just as the Winton Act authorizes a school supra). public to rules which include employer for . . . such adopt “may provisions other matters as are to out the necessary cany purposes [the act]” (§ 13087), Act other Meyers-Milias-Brown to permits public agencies rules which include for . . . such other matters as adopt “may provisions are out Code, latter necessary (Gov. carry purposes [the act]” However, case, in the Sacramento 3507). § County Employees Organization the determination of the court that the could authorize appellate county deduction of dues could limit such deductions to (and payroll members was based recognized employee organizations) upon failure of the dues, Act to mention the Meyers-Milias-Brown subject as well as other statutes which allowed but did not expressly Code, dues deductions require public agencies (Gov. approve 1157.1, 1157.3). contrast, §§ (28 at In 430-431.) Cal.App.3d pp. Winton Act is not silent as to the but defines representation, 13080, 13084, 13085, describes it. (§§ 13087.1.)
The District next attacks the declaration in No. 3 of paragraph that Board not with act to a judgment may unilaterally respect “[t]he matter under We the District’s broad contention that negotiation.” reject circumstances, the Board under act on as to a matter may, any unilaterally CEC the Board and the are then It is meeting conferring. self-evident the latter contention be would destructive of the “meet and confer” of the Winton Act. process contrary purposes token, however, the same No. 3 of the is
By paragraph judgment in that effect broad its is to from Board overly prohibit acting on a current “meet and confer” item unilaterally regardless circumstances, which even be of an nature. The might emergency “meet and confer” section subdivision Legislature, by defining (d), hаs the accommodation to resolve this issue. provided necessary we hold that a not act Accordingly, employer may to a matter as which the is then unilaterally respect employer *19 with meeting conferring representatives employee organizations under section 13085 has unless with section employer complied 13081, subdivision or a bona fide such (d), unilateral emergency compels action.
The District also ascribes error to No. 4 of the paragraph declared follows: “The Board but is not judgment, may, to, enter into a to required legally binding agreement relating wages, conditions, hours and other the so-called working including ‘governing Board, however, clauses.’ The is to meet and confer in a required conscientious" effort to reach on such The matters.” District’s agreement contention this is meritorious. regard
“The Winton Act does not of collective embody concept bargain Its make clear that the conferred ing. provisions [Citations.] right school certificated is voice their views and ideas public employees and to have these views and ideas through recognized representatives considered school but that all final decisions are public employer left 13085, school (§§ Sch. 13088.)” (Westminster public employer. Court, Dist. v. 28 at 128.) is no supra, Superior Cal.App.3d p. “[TJhere in the sense of statutory requirement employer ‘negotiate’ contract, Rather, reach a or striving bargain agreement. statutory ” is in the words ‘meet confer.’ obligation employer expressed Education, v. (Torrance Education Assn. Board at supra, Cal.App.3d 593.) p. to “meet and confer” “a conscientious duty Although requires effort to reach such must be agreement,”13 effected agreement “by (fn. 13The Act Meyers-Milias-Brown requires “meet supra) public employers and confer in faith” with good representatives recognized employee organizations; resolution, . . .” board . or written regulation, governing policy of In v. Los (d).) (Italics added.) subd. Grasko (§ City Angeles Board of Education, 303-304, at the court held that the supra, Cal.App.3d pages of the Winton Act the conclusion that the history compels legislative resolutions, “must be board’s regulations, subject governing policies inasmuch as “the has at the board’s Legislature change pleasure” determined that written contracts or have no binding agreements place in the field of labor relations between a and its employer the court ruled that California school districts Accordingly, employees.” not authorized to enter intо and their boards are binding governing of their matters of regarding agreements representatives at conditions or educational (id. 300.) policy, p. employment were, their in the case at bench on Clauses Governing proposed face, and CEC to convert the veiled the Association thinly attempt by and to effect a Winton Act into a vehicle for collective bargaining Hence, while the contract of the in Grasko. proscribed binding type CEC in a Board is to meet and confer with the required upon request (as defined section conscientious effort to “reach agreement” within the Board (d)) subdivision on matters representation, with the CEC is not to meet and confer concerning required *20 to or Clauses other agreement relating Governing any proposed binding such matters. not the District that a school board is required
Lastly, argues the matter involved meet and confer to determine whether upon request falls within the declaratory Although scope representation. issue, trial court found that did not address itself to that judgment concern there was “an actual between the present controversy parties” law, as an it. this will serve one ing question being opinion Education Torrance (See declaration as to its resolution. adеquate proper Education, Assn. v. Board 21 at 595.) Cal.App.3d p. supra, think that We the District’s contention. We do not reject intended to make the Winton Act a source premature Legislature in cases where neither statute nor case law had answered litigation whether a fell within the mandatory scope question particular subject Winton Act. as defined and described in the representation, broadly information, “to exchange freely defines that the duty and the act obligation including Code, 3505)—a (Gov. § and to endeavor to reach agreement” opinions, proposals, (§ of “meet and confer” Act’s definition to that the Winton by identical duty prescribed Act, “the is (d)). required employer subd. Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown (1970) Alameda (East County Union v. Mun. Bay Employees make counter-proposals” 578, 584, reached after 503]), but any agreement fn. Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d [83 Code, 3505.1). (Gov. § “shall not be on employer conferring binding” meeting of the District’s would Acceptance argument proliferate requests intervention without benefit of the more judicial administrative adequate record, on the merits of that which would result from bearing question, “meet and confer” sessions devoted to its resolution.
The “meet and confer” is intended to serve process by Legislature as a of communication between and the “method[ ] are (§ so as to employers by 13080) they employed” of. . . “promote relations” {ibid.). improvement employer-employee The “meet therefore, and confer” is an instrument of process, employer- relations; and, in cases where there is a whether a employee question must be such specific are topic explored process, questions clearly “matters to . . . relations” (§§ 13085) employer-employee and are themselves subject meeting conferring upon request. (Italics added.)
Our views in this last in no conflict with our that a respect way holding school district is powerless expand scope representation delineated Act. Winton No reached after agreement parties, can a matter within meeting conferring, effectively bring if it has no lawful there. representation place City
Yuba Case Civil No. (3 13924) 1. Facts in Yuba Case City several “meet and confer” sessions to December During prior *21 1970, the Yuba Unified Education Association (“Association”), City a certificated council (“CEC”), to the represented by employee proposed board of the Yuba Unified (“Board”) School District governing City a (“District”) schedule increase for teachers permanent salary employed the District. At those the CEC and the Board’s by meetings representa- tives discussed sources available for teacher increases money salary and areas of the that could be cut to for such increases. budget provide 1970, when, Board’s counteroffer came on December only its the Board a (1970- through representatives, proposed one-year-only $135,000 1971) to be divided all certificated salary adjustment among administrators as well as teachers. The Board personnel, including asserted at “first, that time that its was a last and final counterproposal Association, however, offer.” The declined to it. accept 21, 1970, Board, On December at a of the the chairman of the meeting CEC declared there was a between the CEC persistent disagreement Board, and the and asked for the establishment of a fact-finding committee to the of section 13087.1. Such a pursuant provisions established; committee was it met and thereafter submitted a unanimous 10, 1971, dated to the Board. The made report, February report findings of fact that additional monies would be probably forthcoming District over and above the amounts the Board in anticipated offering $135,000. salary adjustment the chairman of the CEC the Board to meet
Subsequently, requested and confer the' 1970-1971 based regarding salary adjustment upon committee. The Board was findings fact-finding willing but, “discuss” that on the that the Winton voluntarily subject; ground it, Act did not the Board refused to require recognize any legal obligation to meet and confer on teachers’ salaries based the committee’s upon Instead, the Board’s to the CEC two findings. representatives proposed alternative methods of to certificated as a one-year allocating personnel, 1970-1971, $135,000 a sum than not but salary adjustment greater inclusive of all funds additional commit- anticipated by fact-finding tee. Because of the refusal of the Board to meet and confer on the basis alternative, of the committee’s other report, lacking any Association one of the two alternatives the Board. accepted proposed The Board thereafter teachers’ salaries for 1970-1971 accord- adjusted ingly. from 1971 to June the CEC
During period July requested Board to meet and confer on in relation budget spending priorities increases, to teachers’ on the use and for such salary availability increases of revenues and monies which the Board had specified discretion to for that and on the effect appropriate purpose, inhibiting such increases of for other from the expenditures purposes District’s undistributed reserve. The CEC also the Board to requested uses, meet and confer on those items for other prior appropriating, funds which the Board had discretion to for teachers’ salary expend increases.
The Board refused those The Board contended that the requests. Act the “meet and confer” of the Winton did not extend to requirements CEC, that, Board would honor items the the by specified although se, it its to meet and confer on teachers’ salaries statutory per obligation a would “discuss” on basis than under (rather only voluntary statutory the revenue items availability, budget concerning compulsion) the reserve. on and use of undistributed Accordingly, spending priorities, half of 1971 and first half of numerous occasions the last during CEC conferred on teachers’ and the Board’s met and representatives increases, “discussed” the other related fiscal items. but salary only for this the Board 1971-1972 budget During period, adopted authorized for other of funds which it had purposes expenditures increases; discretion to for teachers’ and the Board appropriate salary CEC did so even no existed and the had though emergency requested in relation Board to defer action until the of those priority expenditures to such increases had been at “meet and confer” sessions. explored
In the Board refused to meet and confer upon spring committee established after basis of the of a fact-finding report the CEC with had been declared by respect disagreement persistent Instead, for the 1971-1972 school teachers’ increases year. salary the certificated another Board salary adjustment granted than of the undistributed reserve for that a smaller portion using purpose CEC had proposed. 2. and Contentions Judgment
in Yuba Case City 2No. of the held as declaratory Paragraph portion judgment Act, 13087.1, Code follows: “The Winton in Education establishes a § and recommendations a committee established procedure findings to consider the resolution of between a any disagreement persistent and the Section 13087.1 employer employee representative. that the and recommendations shall be the basis contemplates findings for the or resolution of the matters in The Winton Act narrowing dispute. that meet and confer accordingly request requires parties of a and recommendations committee formed respect findings to 13087.1.” § pursuant
Inasmuch as section 13087.1 that provides findings under it “shall not be recommendations of a committee established on the second sentence No. paragraph binding parties,” and recommenda that the committee’s findings erroneously adjudged or resolution of the matters tions “shall the basis for the be” narrowing those and recommen 13087.1 Section findings contemplates dispute. matters. or resolution of such dations be the basis for the narrowing may contention, however, did not err in the trial court to the Board’s Contrary
257 to and confer that the Winton Act the meet requires parties upon holding and recommenda- “with to” the committee’s findings request respect tions. which it is one 13087.1 states that the
Section prescribes procedure . . . .” the “for resolution of Although persistent disagreements recommendations of the are not bound and parties findings committee, would in efforts seldom be aid resolving committee’s if the under no were statutory compul- persistent disagreements parties to such and sion to meet and confer upon request respect findings recommendations.
Moreover, subdivision 13081 defines (e) section dis- “persistent as “a to between and agreement” disagreement parties meeting this article that has not been resolved to the conferring required by mutual satisfaction of the such and parties thrоugh meeting conferring within a reasonable of time after initial period presentation inferred, therefore, .. ..” It is to that (Italics added.) be proposals clearly which matters are subject “persistent disagreement” procedure 13087.1 section are the same matters as to which section 13085 a requires school to meet and confer hence public employer upon request; findings and recommendations such matters are likewise within the concerning of section 13085. mandatory language use and
The also held that matter judgment subject “[t]he school and monies within the discretion revenues availability specified of a school for an increase in teacher public employer appropriate salaries,” and matter of the and subject budget spending priorities “[t]he of a school in relation to their substantial public employer impact upon salaries,” an in increase teacher are “matters employment conditions” within thus sections meaning matters section upon requires employer meet and confer upon request. judgment permanently enjoined Board from fiscal meet and confer the aforementioned refusing matters “under established reasonable orderly procedures pursuant Act,” tо. the Winton that the revenues were question provided substantial and to be the existence not otherwise required expended of an emergency.
The Board asserts that the the above erroneously brought judgment stated fiscal matters of section 13085. The Board’s within scope case, fails. In our of the San Juan we have discussion argument to have a intended certificated explained Legislature 13080, 13084, 13085. broad under sections representation *24 The fiscal matters mentioned in the not all bear judgment only directly also, on increases teachers’ but (i.e., (§ 13084)) to some salary “wages” extent, “the formulation of educational (§ hence 13080); bespeak policy” are embraced the inclusion in sections 13084 and th,ey manifestly 13085 of “all matters conditions and employment employer- relations . . . .” The Board’s with the employee disagreement plain of those sections is a of view which meaning point only Legislature can vindicate or amendment. This court has no such by statutory repeal power. matters, course, such fiscal we
Concerning interpret only of the to “meet and confer” As (§ 13085). hereinbe- statutory obligation fore in the context of the San Juan case fn. 10 and (ante, emphasized pp. 242, 248, and 252), section 13088 reserves to the Board the expressly of final decision. power
The of the also the Board injunctive portion judgment enjoined monies, from not otherwise or restricted and “[e]xpending obligated within its discretion to for teacher salaries and not appropriate required to be the existence of an such times as expended emergency, during reasonable and established to the Winton orderly procedures, pursuant Act, are to a to meet and confer being pursued pursuant request monies, of the substantial, such if for an subject appropriation increase in teacher salaries.” In reference to this apparent portion the Board contends that Winton Act does not judgment, “[t]he require that be before a school meeting conferring completed public act.” employer may
The Board’s latter contention is broad. As indicated in that overly of this devoted case, to the San portion Juan it cannot be said opinion that the Winton Act without requires, exception, meeting be before a school conferring act. completed Those employer may were in exceptions the instant preserved by (Yuba injunction City) case, which restrained the Board from monies expending subject only if there was no them, need for if emergency “reasonable and only were orderly” procédures a “meet and being pursued implement confer” their request concerning appropriation. when, Board next contends that the trial court erred 1No. of it held that
paragraph declaratory judgment, “[t]ake it-or-leave-it offers to teacher by a public employer respect salaries, a matter within the subject required scope representation Act, the Winton violates the Winton Act by failing requirement [sz'c] of Education Code that there be a conscientious effort (d)] § [subd. *25 to reach under We the Board’s agreement orderly procedures.” uphold contention.
The in this was based the court’s judgment finding respect as a conclusion of that the Board had made one or more law) (expressed offers with to The teachers’ salaries. respect finding “[t]ake-it-or-leave-it” 15, in had substantial the evidence that on December undisputed support time, its to Board as that the had made only counterproposal up “first, what the Board called a last final The was then and offer.” finding that, also evidence to the 1970-1971 supported by regard salary the Board had two alternative methods of adjustment, proposed adjust- while, time, salaries the at same the Board was the CEC’s ing refusing to meet and confer the request concerning report fact-finding committee. 1, however, No. The in was too In broad. and holding paragraph the mere fact that offers made a to by employer
itself “meet and confer” items are “take-it-or-leave-it” offers is insufficient to show lack of a conscientious effort the to reach by employer agreement under Act Winton does not the orderly procedures. require to overstate its demands and understate its concessions employer initially and make a series of before at an ultimate faith proposals arriving good on an issue. position
As said an under the Labor concerning analogous proposition Relations Act U.S.C. 141 et (29 “The § duty Management seq.), statutory to as set forth in of the Act 8(d) Section U.S.C. collectively bargain [29 * * * 158, subd. the meet and (d)] § ‘to parties obligation imposes upon confer in faith with and hours and other terms good respect wages, conditions with a view the final and negotiation employment’ execution an The statute states this agreement. specifically ‘does not either to a or obligation compel party agree proposal require of a concession.’ Thus the insistence [Cf., adamant § making 13088.] on a is not refusal to a bargaining position necessarily bargain good held, faith. ‘If the is if is insistence it sincerely genuinely [Citation.] not mere window it it be maintained forever dressing, may though conviction, a from stalemate. held and which no produce firmly Deep made, will withdrawal be be more than traditional may opening of a labor It be both citizen and gambit controversy. may right * * * essential to our economic free collective legal system bargaining.’ The determination as to whether which have [Citation.] negotiations ended in stalemate were held in the a demanded the statute is spirit of fact which can a be answered consideration of all question only that, whole, ‘subtle and elusive factors’ viewed as a create true picture entered into with a fair whether or not a has discussion negotiator mind a sincere find a basis agreement. [Citations.]” purpose Lines, 731; 333 F.2d Bus Inc. Cir. (1st 1964) v. Almeida (N.L.R.B. Co. v. Standard Accident Ins. (1961) see Cal.App.2d Hodges 17].) Cal.Rptr. [18 that the Board’s attacks the court’s Board finding
Lastly, meet confer “substantial” was to refuse to concerning policy salaries, teachers’ District’s impact budget priorities upon *26 in June was manifested Board also the that this finding policy challenges confer” its conduct in to a “meet and request response by CEC. was show that The Board’s claim is that the evidence insufficient an its to meet confer refusal and related having budget priorities teachers’ salaries which was “substantial.” impact upon that, is The was while The claim evidence unavailing. undisputed the CEC’s to meet confer on effect of the requests refusing ongoing increases, $74,000 teachers’ the Board used budget salary priorities from the District’s in 1971 for undistributed reserve August purposes other than such That is not The as to increases. sum insubstantial. finding the in this was Board’s thus there general being policy regard supported, a factual basis for in of terms injunction declaratory judgment that Thus error in as to any finding general policy. specific Board’s conduct in June 1972 was harmless.
The in 3 Civil No. 14010 and 3 No. Civil 13924 are judgments in and, modified, modified accordance with this as thus opinion; are The affirmed. will bear their costs on judgments parties separate appeal. J., concurred.
Regan, FRIEDMAN, Winton in P. J.I concur in dissent Acting part. part, verbal abstractions Act contains a number give large For after of concrete solutions. but not the reality example, appearance voice in “to a a broad afford organizations] expressing purpose [teacher act demands (§ 13080), formulation educational policy” “with school trustees meet аnd confer with these organizations regard to the definition of educational objectives, procedures curricula, determination the content courses selection textbooks, 13085.) ....” (§ and other the instructional aspects program in is coex narrow procedures hardly Relatively employee participation with broad in Similar tensive policy. examples linguistic participation looseness abound. of this sort have the earmarks of verbal
Statutory generalizations between interests. allow a compromises contending special They legisla- tive from and send the into interests out controversy escape contending the administrative arena and from thence into overburdened already courts. Conventional tenets fall flat in the face statutory interpretation Hence, of such must be conflicting draftsmanship. interpretations tentative respectful.
The Winton Act to demarcate seems a number of functional separate areas, some, interest in granting organizations employee participatory view, them from others. The fails to opinion, my excluding majority observe these demarcations and in a which extends indulges blending into decisional concerns not intended employee рarticipation Legislature.
An amicus brief filed the California School Boards Association *27 that the of urges scope representation granted employee organizations by Education Code sections 13083 and 13084 not is relevant in ascertaining the extent of the “meet and confer” of section 13085. The provisions that contention. There is no in majority sense a opinion correctly rejects labor relations statute which mandates a of then sphere representation, the excludes from to within employee organization any right negotiate of that part sphere.
In the case of District, San Juan Unified School I the (1) that agree: rules district’s couldn’t and didn’t the regulations enlarge statutory area of that the “master (2) labor-management negotiations; agreement” demanded the San Juan Teachers an Association was by unjustified to an on the collective contract school attempt board; impose illegal bargaining that the school had no to enter into
(3) trustees authority optional contracts; collective (4) that the character the school bargaining teachers, affected conditions of hence counselling program employment 13085; that within the of section (5) lay mandatory negotiatiоn provision the in an to school trustees could not refuse to “meet confer” effort define the scope negotiations.
I from dissent the of the declaratory majority’s approval judgment’s that statement “all matters of the school implementation” to this were At counselling program subject compulsory negotiation. trial At court of the statute. point simply repeated fuzzy language this err a too wide point majority by delineating scope For formulation compulsory negotiations. example, qualifications is a lawful counselors subject mandatory, teacher-management consultations; selection individual is not. counselling among applicants is to be Thus the “all matters” in the too broad phrase judgment sustained. court which
At one the trial a granted point preliminary injunction counselors with educational directed school board employ outside is injunction injunction. qualifications prescribed Nevertheless, of this I do not wish imply approval appeal. to fix the the law a court silence. authorizes superior judge Nothing for school district educational employment. applicants qualifications case, I As to the Unified School District Yuba City agree generally with the to—but not including—its acceptanсe majority opinion up a school must meet and confer with teacher board proposition for educational allocations purposes organizations regarding budgetary outside the teachers’ salaries and benefits. At this area of fringe point, court’s and the this trial rest shaky judgment majority opinion bus thesis—that a decision to musical instruments or a school buy teachers, diminishes the available to hence the school board money pay is teachers’ over the wisdom required negotiate organization or That musical instruments a school bus. necessity purchasing first, thesis rests an over-broad view of conditions employment upon, and, second, section mandatory negotiation exposes *28 refusal to the 1970 to section 13085. amendment recognize 1965,
When the Act Winton was in section 13085 teacher adopted gave to two areas. a with the school board in organizations negotiate right These were in the terms: “all to (a) described matters relating following “all relations” and (b) conditions employment employer-employee . . . . the . . .” In 1970 section matters to instructional relating program 1970, 1412, The 1413.) 13085 was amended in several chs. (Stats. respects. clauses, but the 1970 did not the first of the above amendment change for the second was amended to substitute the word “procedures” phrase Thus, 1970, two “all matters.” as amended the second of the above was to clauses amended require negotiations covering “procedures . . to . the instructional relating program.”
A an school board makes annual budget proposed expenditures up Code, itemized functions and (Ed. estimated revenues “by object.” 20602, for an “undistributed raise 20603.) §§ budget money may Code, School reserve” unforeseen (Ed. 20605.) § expenditures. covering Code, 20751, districts are limited tax rate (Ed. 20800.) §§ ceilings. revenue, a Given limited all decisions one expenditure impinge upon another. revenue devoted to “functions and Every anticipated penny other than diminishes revenue objects” employee compensation available for I find in the Winton Act compensation. employee nothing a to into the denoting legislative design inject organizations employee entire of school board deliberations. gamut budgetary
In “all matters to conditions” relating phrase relating employment determinations, to it is difficult to articulate formula a for budgetary course, inclusion and exclusion. this of the statute Generally, part embraces for salaries and a benefits. appropriations fringe Dealing statute, somewhаt one court has restricted analogous to those matters “a or compulsory negotiations having significant material hours and other conditions relationship” wages, employ- N.L.R.B., 548; ment. Electric v. 387 F.2d (Westinghouse Corporation Board, see also v. Fibreboard Labor U.S. 223-224 Corp. [13 233, 245-246, L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. 1130], A.L.R.3d separate opinion Stewart, event, In when the J.) consists of more any relationship nothing than effect created distribution revenue to other negative the decisions are outside the ambit “matters objectives, conditions.” employment
The briefs fail to outline to the clause of section 13085 give precise “with to . . . the requiring negotiations regard procedures relating instructional understandable, The failure is is clause program.” one of the matter has murky mystifying. Only clarity—in aspect “all matters” at of the statute and deleting point substituting area for ^procedures” the 1970 compulsory negotiation, Legislature desire narrow that area. When the school distinctly board expressed decides to bus, for musical or a instruments decision spend money involves neither conditions” nor to ... “employment “procedures relating *29 the instructional I dissent from the view that program.” section majority with teacher in the requires compulsory negotiations organizations area of general budget management. of all the for a Court petitions parties hearing Supreme Richardson, J.,
were denied March 1975. did not 12. therein. participate