I. IN GENERAL

A. Relevant Laws & Agreements

Most of this area is controlled by various California statutes and/or the LAUSD-UTLA Collective Bargaining Agreement (July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1998). Thus an analysis of these issues typically begins with a reference to the relevant statute(s) and/or the relevant provision(s) in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The text of these code sections and provisions is rarely determinative, however, since specific words and phrases are generally subject to varying interpretations.

B. Prospective Legislation

It must also be noted that although an analysis of breakup scenarios necessarily begins with existing laws and agreements, it should not end there. In the event of a breakup -- and particularly in the event of a breakup pursuant to a master plan -- there is no need to stop at the boundaries of current law. Reasonable legislation mandating new and creative approaches to existing problem areas will always remain a possibility.

C. Breakup Scenarios

In this regard, two broad categories of breakup scenarios have generally been deemed possible by members of both the education community and the legal community in California. Under one scenario, a master plan would be adopted which would result in a breakup. Any contingencies could be addressed through additional legislation, and possible sticking points could be worked through in advance. Under a second scenario, small municipalities or neighborhoods would break off, but a Los Angeles Unified School District would still remain in existence (similar to the breakup of the former Soviet Union). It must be noted that with regard to some of the issues discussed below, the potential outcome would be the same under either a "breakup" or a "break-off" scenario. Other issues, however, may be resolved in very different ways depending on whether a master plan is adopted or whether smaller entities simply go off on their own.

D. Applicability of the Hayden Bill

California Education Code Section 35730.1 -- a central feature of SB 699 (aka the Hayden Bill), signed into law in the summer of 1995 -- contains several subsections that relate directly to the employment area. This document presumes that the Hayden Bill will apply in any breakup scenario, subject to the limitations discussed below.

E. The "More Than 500,000" Requirement of the Hayden Bill

The conditions set forth in California Education Code Section 35730.1 apply to each new district created as a result of "any reorganization of a school district with more than 500,000 pupils in average daily attendance." Thus the code section would certainly apply -- initially -- to any breakup scenario impacting LAUSD. However, if a small portion of the district broke off, leaving LAUSD with less than 500,000 pupils, and a subsequent reorganization followed (via either a "breakup" scenario or a "break-off" scenario), 35730.1 might no longer be applicable because it can be argued that a reorganization of a district with less than 500,000 pupils is occurring. Such an interpretation, however, might be seen as contrary to the purpose of the Hayden Bill. Indeed, the wide ranging statutory scheme set forth in SB 699 was arguably designed to apply to any possible reorganization of LAUSD -- even if such a reorganization occurred in "stages" that might turn out to be several years apart. In any event, depending on the type of breakup scenario that could occur, the "less than 500,000" issue might very well be raised by a party to a potential lawsuit. It is conceivable, however, that this statute might be amended some  time soon to resolve such a dispute before it arises.[3]

II. EMPLOYMENT LAW IN THE K-12 EDUCATION COMMUNITY

An overview of basic employment law principles in this area provides an important context for further analysis.

Under common law, employer-employee agreements in general were very loosely construed. For example, a basic principle of contract law is that when duration is not specified, an employment contract is typically terminable at will by either party.[4] In addition, even agreements for a "permanent" job have been interpreted by a majority of the courts to be terminable at the will of either party.[5] State statutes and collective bargaining agreements, however, have changed all this, and as a general rule employment in public school districts is now a highly regulated area.

The following is a brief summary of key areas:

Employment Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace. The provision has been extended by the courts to encompass public employment at all levels of government. Employees are protected against acts that may constitute either disparate treatment or disparate impact.[6]

Teacher Contracts Generally

In general, contracts with teachers must conform to all common law rules for contract formation. These broad principles typically interact with more recent state statutes and collective bargaining agreements to provide broad protections for employees in this regard.

Rules and Regulations

Boards of Education have both express and implied authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing eligibility for employment and regulating employment. In lawsuits challenging these rules and regulations, courts have held that as long as the policies are not contrary to state policies and do not infringe upon federal or state constitutional or statutory rights, then the test of their validity is their reasonableness in terms of their purpose.[7]

Implied Duties

Many lawsuits over the years have challenged the right of school districts to require certain duties of teachers that have not been expressly set forth in contracts. Contracts with teachers vary greatly with regard to duties that may or may not be set forth.[8] While the courts have generally been sympathetic to school districts in this regard, the trend today is to avoid labor disputes by including such things in collective bargaining agreements.

Assignment and Transfer

Under common law, assignments within the scope of a teacher's certificate could be made at the discretion of the school board.[9] Indeed, teachers had no common law right to specific building assignments.[10] Following the pattern set forth above, however, these areas today are typically regulated by state statute and/or by collective bargaining agreements.

Tenure Statutes

In most states today legislation grants teachers tenure protection upon the satisfactory completion of a probationary period. The constitutionality of these statutes has been uniformly sustained.[11] Although there has recently been a movement in certain states to modify the protections set forth in these statutes,[12] teacher  tenure in most states remains firmly in place.

III. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

A. The Hayden Bill and Collective Bargaining Generally

California Education Code Section 35730.1 (i) provides: "Any reorganization of a school district with more than 500,000 pupils in average daily attendance shall require that each new district created meets the following conditions: The maintenance of the conditions of all collective bargaining agreements until their expirations." This document presumes, therefore, that all provisions in the current LAUSD-UTLA Collective Bargaining Agreement (July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1998) will remain in effect throughout all new districts that might be created as a result of a breakup or break-off. It must be noted, however, that these provisions expire on June 30, 1998, and that their continued viability would likely depend on the outcome of new collective bargaining between teachers and districts.

B. The Rodda Act: Background

In California, collective bargaining is mandated by law, and controlled generally by SB 160, the Rodda Act. A brief history of the relevant changes in law leading up to the passage of the Rodda Act provides an important context for understanding this legislation.[13]

Teacher-management relations in California were governed by the National Labor Relations Act until 1961, when California adopted its own laws governing public sector employment relations.[14] These laws were bolstered by the passage of the Winton Act and the Russell-Rodda amendments in 1970.[15] While teachers initially supported the new legislation, which recognized the professional nature of teaching and gave teachers a voice in educational policy, it was clear by 1971 that the "meet-and-confer" system mandated by these statutes was unsuccessful.[16]

California Attorney Lisa Mendel explains that a number of factors provided the impetus for passage of the Rodda Act, the first true collective bargaining statute for California public school employees: "Conflicts in the results of different courts' interpretations of the Winton and Russell-Rodda Acts led to the desire for a uniform law, the California Teachers Association (CTA) became a supporter of collective bargaining, and union activity in higher education intensified as the California State University system moved toward a collective bargaining system."[17] In addition, UCLA Law School Professor Craig Becker suggests that the "women's movement" of the 1960's and 1970's also influenced members of this female-dominated teaching profession to insist on higher wages and a voice in decision-making.[18]

C. The Rodda Act: An Overview

SB 160, the Rodda Act of 1975, was introduced by State Senator Albert Rodda "to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations within the public school systems" in California by recognizing the employees' right to exclusive representation by the organization of their choice and affording them a voice in the formulation of school policy.[19] The Act limited the scope of negotiations to "matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment."[20] Parties are required to negotiate in good faith, but the Act does not require them to reach an agreement.[21] Other significant provisions of this Act provided for exclusive representation of employees, impasse resolution procedures, and the establishment of the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB).[22]

The Rodda Act mandated exclusive representation for all teachers within a bargaining unit.[23] Certification of an organization as representative is granted after submission of support by a majority of all teachers within a bargaining unit.[24] For the first time, teachers were given the power to negotiate and enter into a written agreement with the school district through a single group representing the teachers.[25] The Act also mandated impasse resolution procedures to break deadlocks between negotiating parties.[26]

Return to the Table of Contents
Go to the Next Section
Return to LAUSD Study Page.
UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

updated