Employment Issues Affecting Educators
Under Possible LAUSD Breakup Scenarios

Stuart Biegel
University of California, Los Angeles

Winter, 1997



V. CONCLUSION

Briefing documents such as this do not seek to provide answers. Indeed, the purpose of the research leading to this document was to identify central questions, and when possible to outline likely scenarios. Some of the issues discussed above can reasonably be expected to play out in certain predictable ways, while for others any sort of prediction would be impossible.

It must be emphasized that policy makers in this area are not tied down to existing laws. Particularly in the event of a breakup based on a master plan, contingencies can be addressed by legislation and reasonable changes can be built into innovative programs and forward-looking laws. However, if the district breaks up, at least on some level, through the "breaking off" of smaller areas, then many of the issues raised in this document are likely to be decided only by courts of law after lengthy and time-consuming litigation.

Finally, it should be noted that as the author of this document I take no position on either the efficacy of a breakup itself or on any of the specific issues raised in these pages. I only hope that this research will prove informative, and that it will serve as an important resource for members of the community as they seek to address these difficult questions in the weeks and months ahead.

 



Appendix: Table of Relevant Authorities for Specific Problem Areas in Possible LAUSD Breakup or Break-off

Significant
Federal Issues
May Arise		State Statues
Generally
Apply 		Specifically
Addressed in
C/B Agreement 		Specifically
Mentioned in
Hayden Bill 		Hayden Bill
Probably
Applies
(for New Districts)
A. Rights of
Permanent
Teachers
Generally		Tenure Rights and seniority rights are generally protected.
B. Salary
Scale		Salary scale agreed upon.Existing Scale probably constitutes requisite baseline.
C. Benefits
Generally		Accumulated leave rights are protected. Both current & prospective medical benefits addressed. Requires recognition of 'existing retiree' medical benefits. Existing medical benefits probably constitute baseline.
D. Retirement
Income		Prohibition against impairment of contracts probably protects vested rights (US Const.).Ed. Code addresses sharing of obligations between old & new districts.
E. Placements,
Transfers, &
Reassignments		Seniority rights apply for permanent teachers.Transfer policies generally agreed upon. Existing transfer policies probably constitute requisite baseline.
F. Rodriquez
Constent
Decree		Requires compliance with terms of consent decree.Consent decree probably constitutes requisite baseline.
G. Ethnic
Balance Issues		Requires compliance with terms of consent decree.Consent decree probably constitutes requisite baseline.
H. Union
Representation		General federal labor law may apply. Rodda Act applies.UTLA currently recognized as exclusive rep. Maintenance of conditions of C/B agreement requiredUTLA currently recognized as exclusive rep.
I. Employment
Policies at LEARN
Schools		Policies in existence at LEARN schools must be preserved.Current policies probably constitute requisite baseline.
 

[1]In essence, this document focuses on employment issues impacting classroom teachers. To the extent that administrators are also considered certificated personnel, this analysis would in certain cases apply to them. However, with regard to administrators' current positions, additional and/or separate employment issues would be raised that are beyond the scope of this document.
[2]It should be noted that classified employees in LAUSD are governed by a merit system. A key question that might arise, for example, is whether such a system would necessarily continue in any new districts formed as a result of a breakup or a break-off.
[3]In addition, it must be recognized that even if the Hayden Bill does not apply down the road, a variety of existing constitutional provisions, statutes, and case decisions might very well be employed in prospective lawsuits to mandate the same protections set forth in SB 699.
[4] See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. Andrews, 211 F.2d 264 (10th Cir. 1954).
[5]See, e.g., Ruinello v. Murray, 36 Cal. 2d 687 (1951).
[6]See generally MACK A. PLAYER, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW (1988).
[7]See E. REUTTER, THE LAW OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 496-500 (4th ed. 1994).
[8]See id. at 500-503.
[9]See, e.g., Leithliter v. Board of Trustees of Lancaster School Dist., 12 Cal. App. 3d 1095 (1970).
[10]See, e.g., Mathews v. Board of Education, 198 Cal. App. 2d 748 (1962).
[11]See Reutter, supra note 6, at 637-642.
[12]See David Glovin, Trustees Take Aim at Teacher Tenure, The Record, March 17, 1996; Ledyard King, Tenure Looks Tenuous for Florida Teachers, Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, April 11, 1996; Laurel Shaper Walters, More States Yank Teacher-Tenure Rug, Christian Science Monitor, May 7, 1996.
[13]For a more detailed analysis of this background information, see generally Lisa Mendel, Collective Bargaining and the Educational Process: The Second Annual California Education Law Symposium, 4 UCLA Journal of Education 3, Special Symposium Edition (Summer 1990).
[14]See Note, The Right to Strike and the Rodda Act: A Shift in Bargaining Power, 10 PAC. L.J. 971 (1979), citing 1961 Cal. Stat. c. 1964 at 4141. The new laws provided protection for any public employee seeking membership to an employee organization and guaranteed the right to "meet-and-confer" with employers concerning wages and working conditions. Critics of the Act believed it could lead to a split in loyalty of the worker and unduly infringe upon the state's interest in being free from outside influence when dealing with workers. See id. at 972.
[15]1970 Cal. Stats. c. 1412, ¤1, at 2680 (repealed 1975); 1970 Cal. Stats. c.1413 ¤1 at 2683 (repealed 1975). See generally Rodda, Collective Bargaining for Educators under SB 160, 4 UCLA Journal of Education 34-35, Special Symposium Edition (Summer 1990).
The new laws replaced the provision of the 1961 statute requiring "conferring in good faith" with the term "negotiate," but did not provide for exclusive representation. A new definition of impasse required participants to meet and confer in a conscientious manner. The laws provided for mediation, but did not require publication of a fact finder's recommendation or a written contract. See Rodda, Forward--Public Employment Relations Symposium: Collective Bargaining in the California Schools, 18 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 845, 846 (1978).
[16]See id. at 973. Some possible reasons for this system's failure included the ongoing feeling among educators that a stronger "teacher voice" was needed to compete for diminishing financial resources, and the fact that the teacher- administrator relationship had arguably become so adversarial that exclusive representation for teachers alone was the only solution. See id. at 973, citing Bowen & Aussieker, Teacher Negotiations in a Changing Environment, 11 CAL. PUBL. EMP. REL. 2 (1971).
[17]See Mendel, supra note __, at 12.
[18]See Craig Becker, Governing the Schools: Teachers' Unions and Public Education, 4 UCLA Journal of Education 49, Special Symposium Edition (Summer 1990).
[19]Cal. Gov't Code section 3540.
[20]Cal. Gov't Code section 3543.2.
[21]Cal. Gov't Code sections 3543.5, 3543.6.
[22]The Rodda Act established the Public Employees Relations Board to govern all public labor relations. The duties of PERB include the conducting of representational elections, the appointment of mediators and the resolution of unfair labor practice charges filed with the board. Cal. Gov't Code sections 3541.3 (c), (i), 3548. When an unfair labor practice is committed by a school district or an employee organization, PERB may investigate, hold hearings, and prescribe appropriate remedial action. Cal. Gov't Code section 3541.5(c). Examples of unfair labor practices include refusal to meet and negotiate in good faith, and breach of duty of fair representation. Cal. Gov't Code sections 3543.5(c), 3543.6(c).
[23]Cal. Gov't Code section 3540.
[34]Cal. Gov't Code section 3544.
[25]Cal. Gov't Code section 3540.
[26]If either party declares an impasse, a mediator is appointed within five days. Cal. Gov't Code section 3548. If the mediator, after attempting to resolve the problem, agrees with the requesting party that fact-finding is needed, the issue is submitted to a three-person fact-finding panel. See Cal. Gov't Code section 3548.1. The fact finders' recommendations must be made public, but are only advisory to the school board. See Cal. Gov't Code section 3548.3.
[27]See, e.g., Noguera v. North Monterey County U.S.D., 106 Cal. App. 3d 64 (1980).
[28]See generally Part III, supra. See also E. REUTTER, THE LAW OF PUBLIC EDUCATION (4th ed. 1994).
[29]However, as with the Hayden bill generally, other relevant legal principles would still be applicable in this context. For example, laws pertaining to successorship and the duty to bargain cannot be ignored. See, e.g., NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972). See also supra, note 3 and accompanying text.
[30]See Rusty Selix, ART Letter to Marc Forgy, Secretary, L.A. County Committee on School District Reorganization, June 26, 1996 (on file with the author).
[31]See Cal. Const., art. I, section 9.
[32]See, e.g., Thorning v. Hollister School Dist., 11 Cal. App. 4th 1598, 1607 (1992).
[33]Prospective division of assets and liabilities in the event of a breakup or break-off is analyzed and discussed in a separate accompanying document. See index to LAUSD Breakup Project...
[34]See Reutter, supra note 6, at 573-576.
[35]Collective Bargaining Agreement between the United Teachers Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District, July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1998, at pages 53-72.
[36]See Statement of Decision, Rodriguez v. LAUSD, No. C 611-358, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (August 25, 1992).
[37]See Consent Decree, Rodriguez v. LAUSD, No. C 611-358, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (August 25, 1992).
[38]For a further discussion of Rodriguez and related school finance issues, please see the accompanying document addressing finance Issues.
[39]Collective Bargaining Agreement between the United Teachers Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District, July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1998, at page 53.
[40]Cite recent cases chipping away at affirmative action, etc. in the workplace and in higher education.

Return to the Previous Section
Return to LAUSD Study Page.
UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

updated