Thе court of appeals granted the board’s motion for summary judgment and denied the writ because it determined that the collective bargaining agreements’ exclusion of appellants from coverage prevailed over any provisions of R.C. Chapters 3317 and 3319 containing more expansive definitions of the term “teacher” or establishing conflicting salary requirements. The court of appeals relied on R.C. 4117.10(A), which provides:
“An agreement between a public employer and an exclusive representative entered into pursuant to this chapter governs the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of public employment covered by the agreement. * * * Where no agreement exists or where an agreement makes no specification about a matter, the public employer and public employees are subject to all applicable state or*29 local laws or ordinances pertaining to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for public employees. * * * [TJhis chapter prevails over any and all other conflicting laws, resolutions, provisions, present or future, except as otherwise specifiеd in this chapter or as otherwise specified by the general assembly. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
R.C. 4117.10(A) was designed to free public employees from conflicting laws which may interfere with their right to collectively bargain. State ex rel. Rollins v. Cleveland Hts.-Univ. Hts. Bd. of Edn. (1988),
Appellants, when employed as LD and ESL tutors during the pertinent school years, were excluded from the applicable collective bargaining agreements because they were hourly paid employees. Appellants were not members of the bargaining unit represented by the unions when the agreements were negotiated, executed, or in effect. R.C. 4117.10(A) specifies that public employment collective bargаining agreements govern only the wages, hours, and terms and conditions “covered by the agreement.” Since appellants were not covered by the agreements, R.C. Chapters 3317 and 3319 governed appellants’ employment conditions. The court of appeals thus erred in concluding otherwise.
Appellants contend that a tutor is a “teacher” under R.C. 3319.09(A), a tutor is entitled to compensation according to the board’s duly adopted pay schedule under R.C. 3317.14, and a tutor may obtain back pay by way of mandamus, citing State ex rel. Tavenner v. Indian Lake Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1991),
In Brown and Tavenner, the court relied on the R.C. 3319.09(A) definition of “teacher.” R.C. 3319.09 provides:
“As used in sections 3319.08 to 3319.18, inclusive, of the Revised Code:
*30 “(A) ‘Teacher’ means all persons certified to teach and who are employed in the public schools of this state as instructors, principals, supervisors, superintendents, or in any other educational position for which the state board of education requires certification including persons having a certificate issued pursuant to sections 3319.22 to 3319.31, inclusive, of the Revised Code and employed in an educational position, as determined by the state board of education, under programs provided for by federal acts or regulations and financed in whole or in part from federal funds, but for which no certification requirements for the position can be made under the provisions of such federal acts or regulations.” (Emphasis added.)
Although Brown and Taverner utilized the R.C. 3319.09(A) definition of “teacher” for purposes of placement of tutors on the teachers’ salary schedule required by R.C. 3317.13 and 3317.14, this definition “is expressly applicable only to teaching contracts and conditions of employment set forth in [R.C.] 3319.08 to [R.C.] 3319.18,” the Teacher Tenure Act. Buchter, Scriven & Sheeran, Baldwin’s Ohio School Law (1993) 145, Section 8.02. In that limited extent, we hold that Brown and Tavenner applied the incorrect statutory provision in their analyses. R.C. 3317.13 provides a minimum salary schedule for teachers and contains its own definition of “teacher” in subsection (A)(2):
“ ‘Teacher’ means all teachers employed by the board of education of any school district * *
While the R.C. 3317.13(A)(2) definition of “teacher” is somewhat circular, see Buchter, Scriven & Sheeran, supra, at 190, Section 10.02, fn. 11, R.C. 3317.13 and 3317.14 use the word in its ordinary sense, not as a term of art. Wood v. Trotwood Madison Bd. of Edn. (June 12, 1990), Montgomery App. No. CA 11836, unreported,
Nevertheless, R.C. 3317.13(A)(2) must be read in conjunction with R.C. 3319.30, which provides that “no person shall receive any compensation for the performance of duties as teacher in any school supported wholly or in part by the state or federal funds who has not obtained a certificate of qualification for the position as provided for by section 3319.22 of the Revised Code and which certificate shall further certify to the good moral character of the holder thereof. * * * ” The
The board contends that Judith J. Pryor, an ESL tutor, is not entitled to any back pay because her teaching certificate does not include certification for teaching English to speakers of other languages. The board relies on Ohio Adm.Code Section 3301-23-21, which, states in pertinent part:
“ * * * [TJeaching validations may be approved for grade levels set forth in rules 3301-23-01 to 3301-23-07 of the Administrativе Code and for the following:
ii * * ❖
“(F) Teaching English to speakers of other languages * * (Emphasis added.)
However, R.C. 3319.30 requires only a “certificate of qualification for the position as provided for by section 3319.22 of the Revised Code” and a certification of the “good moral character of the holder” in order to avoid denial of compensation. See, generally, Whitley v. Canton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1988),
“(B) Elementary, valid for teaching in grades one to eight;
“(C) Middle grades, valid for teaching the subjects named in such certificate in grades four to nine;
“(D) High school, valid for teaching the subjects named in such certificate in grades seven to twelve[.]”
While the board contended below that appellant Pryor never held any valid teaching certificate for the 1989-1990 school year, it now concedes that the evidence established that shе did possess a teaching certificate. The uncontroverted evidence shows that appellant Pryor held an elementary teaching certificate, valid for teaching in grades one through eight during the relevant period. The certificate contained the additional certification that she was of good moral character and that she had satisfactorily complеted the minimum requirements prescribed by the State Board of Education.
Since appellant Pryor was properly certified under R.C. 3319.22(B), her elementary teaching certificate, unlike those for middle grades or high school as specified in R.C. 3319.22(C) and (D), was valid for teaching in grades one through eight without limitation as to subject matter. See, e.g., Fisler v. Mayfield City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Oct. 31, 1985), Cuyahoga App. No. 49548, unreported,
“Generally, an hourly rate [for tutors] which is agreed upon in collective bargaining, and incorporated in the collective bargaining agreement, may be less than the rate of compensation provided by the salary schedule. If, however, there is no separate pay rate for tutors set forth in the agreement, or if the tutors in question are not members of the bargaining unit, the tutors are subject to [Brown ] and must be paid ‘in accordance with’ the [board’s duly adopted teachers’ salary] schedule.” 1 Baker, Ohio School Law (1993) 334, Section 7.44.1; see, also, Brown and Tavenner, supra. Since appellants were not members of the collective bargaining unit nor covered by the agreements when they were employed as LD and ESL tutors, they must be paid in accordance with the board’s teachers’ salary schedules for the subject school years. The board asserts that since the teachers’ salary schedules were adopted as a result of collective bargaining rather than under R.C. 3317.14, appellants are not entitled to the difference between what they would have earned under the agreements and what they were paid as tutors, but are entitled, at most, only tо the difference between the R.C. 3317.13(C) minimum teachers’ salary schedule amounts and the sums they were paid.
R.C. 3317.14 states:
“Any board of education participating in funds distributed under Chapter 3317. of the Revised Code shall annually adopt a teachers’ salary schedule with provision for increments based upon training and years of service. * * *
“On the fifteenth day of October of each year the salary schedule in еffect on that date in each school district shall be filed with the superintendent of public instruction. A copy of such schedule shall also annually be filed by the board of education of each local school district with the county superintendent of schools, who thereupon shall certify to the treasurer of such local district the correct salary to be paid to each teacher in accordance with the adopted schedule.”
The board participated in funds distributed under R.C. Chapter 3317, the school foundation program, since it admitted that during the school years at issue, R.C. Chapter 3317 funds were paid on its behalf by the Ohio Department of Education to STRS. The teachers’ salary schedules adopted by the board and incorporated in the collective bargaining agreements were the only schedules
The foregoing evidence establishes that the teachers’ salary schedules contаined in the collective bargaining agreements were filed and adopted in substantial compliance with R.C. 3317.14. Therefore, appellants possessed a statutory right to be paid in accordance with those schedules during school years 1986-1987 through 1990-1991. The fact that the schedules were also contained in the collective bargaining agreements from which appellants were excluded does not vitiate this result, since appellants’ claim is premised on R.C. 3317.14 rather than the agreements. Appellants thus have a clear legal right to the difference between the amounts they were paid as tutors and the amounts they should have been paid under the board’s duly adopted teachers’ salary schedule. The board has a corresponding legal duty to pay this comрensation.
The board contends that even if the court of appeals’ rationale was erroneous, its judgment denying appellants’ complaint for a writ of mandamus was proper because appellants had various adequate remedies at law. A writ of mandamus will not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05. In order for an altеrnate remedy to be considered adequate, the remedy must be complete, beneficial, and speedy. See, e.g., State ex rel. Horwitz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div. (1992),
R.C. 3317.13(B) provides in part:
“Upon written complaint to the superintendent of public instruction that the board of education of a district has failed or refused to annually adopt a salary schedule or to pay salaries in accordance with the salary schedule set forth in division (C) of this section, the superintendent of public instruction shall cause to be made an immediate investigation of such complaint. If the superintendent finds that the conditions complained of exist, he shall order the board to correct such conditions within ten days from the date of the finding. No moneys shall be distributed to the district under this chapter until the superintendent has satisfactory evidence of the board of educatiоn’s full compliance with such order.”
In State ex rel. Tavenner v. Indian Lake Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (May 16, 1990), Logan App. No. 8-90-3, unreported,
*34 “In this regard, we note that R.C. 3317.13(B) provides only for an investigation of either (1) a failure or refusal to adopt an annual salary schedulé or (2) a failure to pay salaries in accordance with the state minimum salary schedule. However, the instant claim does not concern either subject cоntained in R.C. 3317.13(B). Instead, we are concerned with respondents’ failure to pay relator in accordance with the district’s adopted Teachers’ Salary Schedule. Therefore we do not find the statute to provide a plain and adequate remedy at law.”
Similarly, neither declaratory judgment nor the right to contest the bargaining unit is an adequate legal remedy. A declaratory judgment wоuld not provide back pay and would not be complete without a mandatory injunction. See, e.g., State ex rel Kmart Corp. v. Westlake Planning Comm. (1994),
Appellants’ complaint also contained a claim by appellants Duncan, Eyre, Ford, and Weethee for payments of additional amounts they would have received if the board had credited their years of service as tutors in computing their salaries as teachers under the collective bargaining agreement. These appellants were covered under the collective bargaining agreements and were paid amounts provided in the teachers’ salary schedules. They filed a grievance concerning the matter and it was set for arbitration. The grievance and arbitration procedures' were complete, beneficial, and speedy as to this claim. “[A] reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof.” Cassels, supra,
Finally, the board asserts that the court of appeals properly denied appellants’ request for mandamus relief because of equitable estoppel, laches, and waiver. Equitable estoppel prevents relief when one party induces another to believe certain facts exist and the other party changes his position in reasonable reliance on those facts to his detriment. Madden, supra,
“The elements of a laches defense are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for such delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party.” State ex rel. Cater v. N. Olmsted (1994),
The board’s waiver argument is also meritless. Waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Id. at 89,
Accordingly, the court of appeals erred in failing to grant appellants a writ of mandamus compelling the board to pay them the difference between their pay as tutors and the pay set forth in the collective bargaining agreements’ teachers’ salary schedules for the period from 1986-1987 through 1990-1991. Since the damage and other issues, e.g., interest, have not yet been resolved, the court of appeals must address these issues on remand. The summary judgment and denial of mandamus relief are affirmed as to appellants Duncan, Eyre, Ford, and Weethee’s claim for increased compensation during the years they were covered by the collective bargaining agreements.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and cause remanded.