Education Code section 45028, subdivision (a)(1) contains a “[u]niformity [r]equirement” pertaining to the salaries of certificated public-school teachers. (Adair v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1444 (Adair).) The law mandates that “when teacher salary schedules operate on the basis of education and experience, they must be wholly uniform.” (Ibid.) A school district and an organization representing certificated teachers in a collective bargaining process, however, may “mutually agree to a salary schedule based on criteria other than a uniform allowance for years of training and years of experience.” (§ 45028, subd. (a)(1).)
In this case, plaintiff Trona Teachers Association CTA/NEA (TTA) entered into a collective bargaining agreement, the 2022-2024 Trona Joint Unified Certificated Agreement (“CBA” or “2022-2024 CBA”), with the Trona Joint Unified School District (District). Although the District approved the CBA in August 2023, the CBA expressly provides that it is “to run retroactive from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.” The CBA also provides it “shall remain in full force and effect from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.” Article 20 of the CBA contains several retroactive provisions pertaining to compensation for certificated employees and refers to salary schedules contained in an appendix to the CBA. The appendix contains two salary schedules based on years of experience and educational levels, one “effective 7/1/2022,” and a second “effective 1/1/2023.” Both schedules also state, “Earned Masters: $2,000 stipend.”
After approving the CBA in August 2023, the District refused to make retroactive payments provided for in the CBA to six former District certificated teachers: plaintiffs Michael Lane, Valerie Gennrich, Yesenia Goins, Tyson LoPresti, Cindy Winks, and Joseph Wolfe (Former Teachers). Although the Former Teachers worked for the District the entire period between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023, they each resigned before the District’s August 2023 approval of the CBA. If applied to the Former Teachers retroactively, the CBA would have resulted in additional pay for each of the Former Teachers in amounts ranging from about $5,000 to $9,000.
Plaintiffs (i.e. the TTA and the Former Teachers) filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the District to provide the Former Teachers with the retroactive payments. Plaintiffs argued that the District’s decision to provide retroactive payments solely to those teachers who remained employed by the District as of August 2023 violated the uniform salary requirement of section 45028. Plaintiffs further contended that the District and the TTA had not mutually agreed to a salary schedule based on any criteria other than a uniform allowance for training and experience. After briefing and argument, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ writ petition.
On appeal, plaintiffs reiterate their contention that the District failed to pay the Former Teachers in accordance with the uniformity requirement of section 45028. They maintain that the District’s refusal to pay the Former Teachers according to the salary schedule for the 2022-2023 period in which they worked created unequal pay for equally qualified teachers who performed the same work. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court’s decision improperly created an “unbargained ‘continuing’ employee condition absent from the statute or CBA.” (Some capitalization and boldface omitted.)
We conclude that the CBA does not contain any language restricting the retroactive increases to employees who remained employed with the District at the time the CBA was approved in August 2023 and that the District’s refusal to pay the Former Teachers the retroactive payments violated section 45028, subdivision (a)(1). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to issue a writ of mandate compelling the District to make the retroactive payments to the Former Teachers.
There are 0 comments