CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION v. SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (1980)

California Teachers Association (CTA) sought a peremptory writ of mandate from the Superior Court directing San Diego Community College District (District) to reclassify and re-employ certain part-time teachers (part-timers) as contract or regular (collectively, permanent) employees for the 1976-1977 school year and to award the part-timers up to four years back pay, with interest, equal to the deference between their salaries as temporary employees and the salaries to which they would have been entitled as permanent employees.

The Superior Court granted the writ on the issue of reclassification, but denied it as to back wages. The basis for its ruling was its interpretation of Education Code section 13337.5 (recodified as s 87482; all references unless otherwise specified are to the Education Code of 1959 as it read just before its recodification effective April 30, 1977.)¹

Pending this appeal our Supreme Court in Peralta Federation of Teachers v. Peralta Community College Dist. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 369, 155 Cal.Rptr. 679, 595 P.2d 113, clarified the meaning of section 13337.5. Peralta holds the final paragraph of that section must be read independently from the preceding three paragraphs, and, therefore part-timers may be classified as temporary employees under that section without limitation. Only those temporary employees who were hired before the effective date of the legislation, November 8, 1967, are entitled to permanent classification. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment for further proceedings to permit the trial court to determine which part-timers, if any, fall within the protected category. We also decide those persons who are so reclassified as permanent employees are entitled to pro rata back pay on the basis of the number of classroom hours they taught compared to the number of classroom hours taught by full-time teachers.

Factual Background

CTA sued on behalf of its members who taught community college classes in San Diego County during the 1976 spring semester and who were classified as temporary employees because they worked less then 60 percent of the hours per week considered a full-time assignment for permanent employees having comparable duties.

The actual composition of the class represented by CTA is not clear from the record. Most of the teachers appear to have been employed for approximately one year, although some had a temporary status for ten years or longer.

The district employs three classes of instructors: regular (“permanent” or “tenured”), contract (“probationary”) and temporary. Some regular and contract teachers are employed part-time and are paid a salary prorated to the salary of a full-time teacher. Temporary teachers are paid a flat hourly rate which is less than the amount paid a salaried employee. Temporary employees do not receive certain fringe benefits associated with contract or regular employment, and they may be dismissed without notice or hearing. However, they are not expected to hold office hours, serve on professional committees or supervise student activities, all of which are required of full-time instructors.

The part-timers possess appropriate academic credentials and many have taught courses of accepted importance to regularly enrolled students. The courses were sometimes interchangeable with those taught by contract or regular teachers requiring the same preparation and presentation.

Retroactive Compensation Should Be Determined On the Basis of Classroom Hours Taught

As noted previously, and as counsel for the parties stipulated at oral argument, Peralta controls the issue of reclassification. The remaining question, and one not fully addressed in Peralta, is the appropriate measure of retroactive compensation under former section 13503.1 for those instructors ordered reclassified and reemployed as permanent employees.

Section 13503.1 provided that any person employed by a school district in a certificated position who served less than the minimum school day as defined in the Education Code, could contract to serve as a part-time employee and that “(i)n fixing the compensation of part-time employees, governing boards shall provide an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount provided full-time employees as the time actually served by such part-time employees bears to the time actually served by full-time employees of the same grade or assignment.” (Italics added.)

The statute, in furnishing the answer to the method of compensating part-time employees also creates the problem for the phrase “time actually served” is wonderfully ambiguous. Not surprisingly, both parties submit the “plain meaning” of this language supports their respective arguments.

CTA's solution is to tie the ratio to the number of classroom hours taught by full-time teachers. Thus, those teachers who are reclassified should be awarded pro rata wages as back pay based on the ratio of the number of classroom hours they taught, as compared to the number of classroom hours taught by full-time teachers. The District argues that this neat formula ignores a variety of nonclassroom hours taught by full-time instructors and is not an accurate representation of the proportionate hours each employee must devote to the job. It claims, for example, that instructors employed as part-time employees, do not perform the same services as full-time permanent employees. They do not include such duties as holding office hours on campus; serving on professional committees; and supervising student activities. In addition, a full-time instructor is required to spend at least 30 hours per week on campus, while a part-time instructor is subject to no such requirement.

Initially, we have some difficulty in fully accepting the District's argument, for the difference in time actually spent by the two groups may well have been caused by the District's own actions in failing to properly classify the part-timers. If taken to its logical extreme, this argument in another setting could result in wrongfully discharged employees from receiving back pay for the period unemployed.

The difference in duties, however, may be the legitimate product of the difference between a part-time and a full-time instructor. On that assumption, and because the language of the statute is susceptible of the meaning attributable to it by each party, we must look to the underlying legislative intent of section 13503.1. In this regard, we may consider the statement from the bill's author, State Senator Albert S. Rodda. (See Campbell v. Board of Dental Examiners (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 283, 285-286, 125 Cal.Rptr. 694.) In a letter to Governor Reagan urging the bill's approval, he said:

“This legislation would provide that part-time employees shall be paid on the basis that the proportion of the time actually served b s to the minimum schoolday as provided in law, thereby proportional to the amount of state income received.

“Inasmuch as every school district may determine the amount of time required of full-time employees, there is a lack of consistency as to the basis upon which part-time employees may be paid. Under current law, it is possible for a school district to receive the equivalent state income generated by a full-time teacher while paying that teacher on a part-time basis.

“The effect of this bill would be to make the proportional ratio of salary payments to part-time employees based upon and consistent with the amount of state income they generate by their teaching activities; it would make such application consistent throughout the state.”

The income of the community college system is based on a set sum of dollars per pupil in average daily attendance (s 17301.12, currently s 14020). Average daily attendance units are computed by multiplying the weekly student contact hours of enrollment by state-wide factors established by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. (s 11475, currently s 84520.) The term “contact hours” means in-class time. Thus, a part-timer teaching thirty students three class hours a week earns the same amount of state money for the college as would a full-time instructor teaching the same class.

Since the object of section 13503.1, as Senator Rodda stated was to pay part-timers a pro rata salary consistent with the amount of state income they generated by their teaching activities, the basis for their salaries should be the number of “contact hours” they teach. On that basis, the phrase “time actually served” means time spent in the classroom. We therefore conclude that if any of CTA's members who are parties to this action are entitled to reclassification and pro rata back pay, the basis of that pay shall be the number of classroom hours they taught as compared to the number of classroom hours taught by full-time teachers.

Disposition

The judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Section 13337.5 provides:“ ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13337, the governing board of a school district maintaining a community college may employ as a teacher in grade 13 or grade 14, for a complete school year but not less than a complete semester or quarter during a school year, any person holding appropriate certification documents, and may classify such person as a temporary employee. The employment of such persons shall be based upon the need for additional certificated employees for grades 13 and 14 during a particular semester or quarter because of the higher enrollment of students in those grades during that semester or quarter as compared to the other semester or quarter in the academic year, or because a certificated employee has been granted leave for a semester, quarter, or year, or is experiencing long-term illness, and shall be limited, in number of persons so employed, to that need, as determined by the governing board.“ ‘Such employment may be pursuant to contract fixing a salary for the entire semester or quarter.“ ‘No person shall be so employed by any one district for more than two semesters or quarters within any period of three consecutive years.“ ‘Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, any person who is employed to teach adult or community college classes for not more than 60 percent of the hours per week considered a full-time assignment for permanent employees having comparable duties shall be classified as a temporary employee, and shall not become a probationary employee under the provisions of Section 13446.’ ”

WIENER, Associate Justice.

GERALD BROWN, P. J., and STANIFORTH, J., concur.