District Required To Submit To Arbitration in Dispute with Union Over Charter School Conversion

In United Teachers Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School District, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 2 Dist., September 17, 2009), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a school district could be compelled to arbitrate a union’s grievance that arose from the school district's approval of a charter school petition. The Court of Appeal held that the school district could be compelled to arbitrate the dispute.

Facts
Green Dot Public Schools filed a charter petition with the Los Angeles Unified School District (“District”) to convert Alain Leroy Locke Senior High School to a charter school. District’s board of education granted the petition. The United Teachers Los Angeles (“Union”) filed a grievance alleging District violated specific provisions in its collective bargaining agreement. District denied Union’s grievance and refused to submit to arbitration on the ground that the collective bargaining agreement’s charter school provision either violated or was preempted by Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (e).

Decision
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court which denied Union petition to compel arbitration.

The District had argued that the trial court properly held that the dispute could not be submitted to arbitration. The relevant portion of the collective bargaining agreement, Article XII-B, sets out procedures for a charter school conversion. The District contended Article XII-B is preempted or invalidated by Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (e), and therefore, the arbitration agreement cannot be enforced. Section 47611.5, subdivision (e), “provides that the approval of a charter school petition shall not be controlled by a collective bargaining agreement nor subject to review or regulation by the Public Employment Relations Board.” The appellate court rejected District’s argument.

Instead the court concluded the merits of a dispute “must be resolved in the first instance by the arbitrator;” that an arbitrator is authorized to decide the merits of the District’s statutory defenses and therefore the matter should have been submitted to arbitration.

What This Means To You
In this case the District agreed to language in its collective bargaining which either violated EERA or was preempted by EERA. All EERA employees should take care not to agree to collective bargaining language which arguably violates, or is preempted by, EERA. Under this decision, the agency could be put in the position of having to assert such defenses before an arbitrator, not a court.