THE STATE EX REL. KABERT ET AL. v. SHAKER HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.
No. 95-1841
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Submitted January 7, 1997—Decided March 19, 1997.
78 Ohio St.3d 37 | 1997-Ohio-242
IN MANDAMUS.
{¶ 1} Relators are eleven tutors employed by respondent, Shaker Heights City School District Board of Education. They held teaching certificates and served as “teachers” as defined by
{¶ 2} In a collective bargaining agreement effective from August 1981 to December 1985, the board recognized the Shaker Heights Teachers’ Association as the exclusive representative of “classroom teachers” in the school district. At the time of this collective bargaining agreement, neither the board nor the association believed that tutors were included in the bargaining unit of “classroom teachers.” In subsequent collective bargaining agreements effective from 1986 through 1997 between the board and the association, the bargaining unit represented by the association expressly excluded tutors. No tutor employed by the board was an association member or paid association dues. When one of relators asked whether she could join the association, she was advised by an association representative that the association did not represent tutors. Another relator was informed by an association representative that the association could not assist her in a matter because she was not a member of the bargaining unit.
{¶ 3} For the school years from 1989-1990 through 1994-1995, the board paid relators at an hourly rate. During the same school years, the board adopted teachers’ salary schedules, which were incorporated in the collective bargaining agreements. The teachers’ salary schedules contained increments based on training and years of service. None of the relators received the compensation designated on these teachers’ salary schedules. During these school years, the board received funds distributed under
{¶ 4} In April 1995, as a result of this court‘s decisions, the board adopted nonbargaining, nonadministrative certificated salary schedules for tutors which purported to cover their compensation from March 1989 through June 1995. In July and August 1995, the board paid relators additional amounts based on its calculations of what they were entitled to under these newly adopted salary schedules. The board also paid its mandatory employer‘s contributions for relators to the State Teachers Retirement System based on the additional pay.
{¶ 5} In October 1995, the superintendent of the school district requested that the association bargain on behalf of tutors employed by the board. After the association refused, the board filed an unfair-labor-practice charge against the association with the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB“). SERB subsequently dismissed the charge because tutors were not members of the bargaining unit represented by the association.
{¶ 6} In September 1995, relators filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the board to pay them the difference between their actual pay as tutors and the teachers’ salary schedules set forth in the collective bargaining agreements. In December 1995, this cause was removed to the Court of Claims pursuant to
{¶ 7} The cause is now before this court on the submitted evidence and briefs.
Gold, Rotatori & Schwartz, Niki Z. Schwartz and Susan L. Gragel; Ulmer & Berne, Thomas H. Barnard and John A. Hnat, for relators.
Squire, Sanders, & Dempsey, David J. Millstone and Loren L. Braverman, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Mandamus; Tutor Compensation
{¶ 8} Relators assert in their various propositions of law that they are entitled to back pay for school years 1989-1990 through 1994-1995 equal to the differences between the amounts they were paid by the board and the amounts paid by the board to teachers other than tutors under the collectively bargained teachers’ salary schedules for those years. They also request postjudgment interest and additional contributions on behalf of relators to the State Teachers Retirement System.
{¶ 9} In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relators must establish (1) a clear legal right to the requested back pay and related benefits, (2) a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board to grant their request for back pay and associated benefits, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Burch v. Sheffield-Sheffield Lake City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 216, 217, 661 N.E.2d 1086, 1088.
{¶ 10} It is well settled that a claim by public employees for wages or benefits is actionable in mandamus. State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 26, 34, 641 N.E.2d 188, 196; State ex rel. Madden v. Windham Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 86, 88, 537 N.E.2d 646, 647. Relators are public employees who claim wages pursuant to
{¶ 11} The board contends that relators are not entitled to the requested back pay because (1) it retroactively adopted tutor salary schedules in 1995 for the pertinent school years and paid relators additional amounts thereunder, (2) the collectively bargained teachers’ salary schedules for school years 1991-1992 through 1994-1995 were never filed with the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Department of Education, and (3) relators did not use the grievance and arbitration procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreements.
Teachers’ Salary Schedules; Retroactive Application
{¶ 12}
“Any school district 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. *** [T]he board may establish its own service requirements ***, provided no teacher receives less than the amount required to be paid pursuant tosection 3317.13 of the Revised Code ***.“On the fifteenth day of October of each year the salary schedule in effect 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 educational service center superintendent, 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.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 13} In construing a statute, the court‘s paramount concern is legislative intent. State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463, 465. “In determining legislative intent, the court first looks to the language in the statute and the purpose to be accomplished.” State v. S.R. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 590, 594-595, 589 N.E.2d 1319, 1323.
{¶ 14} Pursuant to
{¶ 15} The board contends that its April 1995 tutor salary schedules adopted retroactive to March 1989 were corrections permitted by
“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. ***”
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} As the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County recently held in a case involving other tutors seeking similar relief against the board, the “statutory mandate to adopt and file salary schedules annually affirms that the right to be so paid accrues annually, and this may not be retroactively corrected.” State ex rel. Cohn v. Shaker Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (July 1, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69539, unreported, 1996 WL 370586, appeal pending in case No. 96-1787. A contrary holding would permit boards of education to deprive tutors of their right to collect the full wages to which they are entitled under
Teachers’ Salary Schedules; Filing Requirement
{¶ 18} The board next contends that since the collectively bargained salary schedules for school years 1991-1992 through 1994-1995 were never filed with either the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Department of Education, they do not constitute teachers’ salary schedules for purposes of
{¶ 19} As in Chavis, the collectively bargained teachers’ salary schedules here were the only ones adopted by the board during the pertinent school years that provided for increments based on training and years of service. In addition, as in Chavis, there is no evidence that these schedules were filed with the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Nevertheless, the board asserts that Chavis is distinguishable because the schedules in that case were filed with the Department of Education.
{¶ 20} The board‘s argument is without merit. The board manifestly adopted the schedules in compliance with
{¶ 21} The board should not be allowed to benefit from its own failure to comply with its statutory duty under
{¶ 22} Based on the foregoing, the teachers’ salary schedules were adopted pursuant to and in substantial compliance with
{¶ 23} Relators 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 schedules. The board has a corresponding clear legal duty to make these payments.
Adequate Legal Remedy
{¶ 24} The board asserts that relators are not entitled to the requested mandamus relief because they had an adequate remedy at law via the grievance and arbitration procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreements for the pertinent school years. If relators were members of the collective bargaining unit for school years 1989-1990 through 1994-1995, they possessed an adequate remedy at law by the grievance and arbitration provisions to pursue their claims to be paid pursuant to the teachers’ salary schedules incorporated in the agreements. Burch, supra, 75 Ohio St.3d at 220, 661 N.E.2d at 1089-1090; State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland Hts./Univ. Hts. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 189, 192-193, 652 N.E.2d 750, 752-753.
{¶ 25} In order to be members of the collective bargaining unit, relators had to be part of the deemed certified bargaining unit because the agreements effective for school years 1989-1990 through 1994-1995 expressly excluded tutors. A deemed certified collective bargaining unit is the historical unit in which the employee representative bargained with the employer on behalf of public employees in a collective bargaining relationship that predated the April 1, 1984 effective date of
{¶ 26} The board claims that relators were part of the deemed certified bargaining unit because the deemed certified bargaining unit consisted of “classroom teachers,” which included tutors. In support of this claim, the board relies on our holdings that tutors are teachers for purposes of statutes relating to teachers’ salary schedules and teaching contracts and conditions of employment. Chavis, Tavenner, and Brown, supra;
{¶ 27} Instead, we must discern the meaning of “classroom teachers” in the context of the collective bargaining agreement. A collective bargaining agreement is a contract, and “[t]he overriding concern of any court when construing a contract is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the parties.” TRINOVA Corp. v. Pilkington Bros., P.L.C. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 271, 276, 638 N.E.2d 572, 576. Here, the evidence is uncontroverted that the board and association did not intend the phrase “classroom teachers” to include tutors. Further, assuming the phrase is broad enough to unambiguously include tutors in the bargaining unit, the board and association‘s agreement is subject to reformation. See, e.g., Justarr Corp. v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 222, 225, 656 N.E.2d 1345, 1346 (“A mistake in reducing an agreement to writing is subject to reformation if the resulting written contract fails to reflect the agreement of the parties.“).
{¶ 28} In addition,
{¶ 29} Based on the foregoing, the grievance and arbitration procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreements did not constitute an adequate remedy at law. Relators, and other tutors, were not collective bargaining unit members. Cf. Alben, supra, 76 Ohio St.3d at 136-137, 666 N.E.2d at 1123-1124, where relators failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish that they were not part of the deemed certified bargaining unit.
Back Pay
{¶ 30} Relators have established the prerequisites for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to pay them the difference between what they received as tutors and what they were entitled to under the applicable teachers’ salary schedules for school years 1989-1990 through 1994-1995. The parties essentially agree on the amounts of back pay involved. The amounts due each of the relators in back pay, rounded to the nearest dollar, are as follows:
| Audrey Coleman | $26,736 |
| Marilyn Frank | $89,715 |
| Patricia Frew | $25,356 |
| Terry Goulder | $32,801 |
| Nancy Levitan | $28,101 |
| Patricia Schey | $73,349 |
| Lori Dreskin | $14,135 |
| Shelley Kabert | $16,162 |
| Susan Karp | $10,526 |
| Barbara Leeson | $3,080 |
| Lori Ross | $4,023 |
Postjudgment Interest; Retirement Contributions
{¶ 31} Relators request postjudgment interest on the award of back pay. Relators are entitled to postjudgment interest under
Conclusion
{¶ 32} For the foregoing reasons, we grant a writ of mandamus compelling the board to pay relators the difference between the amounts they were paid as tutors and the amounts they were entitled to receive under the teachers’ salary schedules for school years 1989-1990 through 1994-1995, postjudgment interest, and additional mandatory contributions on their behalf to the State Teachers Retirement System.
Writ granted.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.