Decision 1777E – King City Joint Union High School District

SF-CE-2272-E

Decision Date: September 14, 2005

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 164

Decision Headnotes

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.03000 – Contract Repudiation or Breach

When interpreting collective bargaining agreements, the Board applies traditional rules of contract law, such as the provisions of Civil Code sections 1638 and 1641. This guidance is used in unilateral change cases. Every contract requires mutual assent and the outward manifestation or expression of assent is controlling. Where the contract language is silent or ambiguous, the policy may be ascertained by examining past practice or bargaining history. Looking at the surrounding provisions under the principle of “noscitur a sociis,” the salary increase formula clearly substantiates the principle in the CBA that 65% of the appropriate revenues will be allocated to unit members. The Board’s interpretation harmonizes the potential conflict between provisions of the CBA and so “gives a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all the terms” as provided in Civil Code 1641. “Line 1100” is not a technical term under Civil Code section 1645 because it is not a term understood by the union negotiators, who are teachers and who are not school district budget officers. The parties’ outward expressions supports the Board’s interpretation as shown in District spreadsheets with a line item for “unit member salaries.” Looking at bargaining history and the parties’ testimony, substitute teachers, walk-on coaches, and summer school and independent study teachers are not members of the bargaining unit. The District did not provide evidence to contradict the fact that it failed to include required revenue sources in the CBA revenue computation.

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.01000 – In General

The Board found that the District did not fail to respond to the Association’s information requests because the Association did not express dissatisfaction with the District’s responses to its information requests nor did the Association clearly communicate its disagreement with the District sufficiently to require a more detailed response. Other alleged failures to respond were not supported by the evidence.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.11000 – Request for Oral Argument

Oral argument is unnecessary because of the voluminous record, extensive documentary evidence, the opportunity for the parties to brief their positions, and the comprehensiveness of the briefs.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.01000 – In General

When interpreting collective bargaining agreements, the Board applies traditional rules of contract law, such as the provisions of Civil Code sections 1638 and 1641. This guidance is used in unilateral change cases. Every contract requires mutual assent and the outward manifestation or expression of assent is controlling. Where the contract language is silent or ambiguous, the policy may be ascertained by examining past practice or bargaining history. Looking at the surrounding provisions under the principle of “noscitur a sociis,” the salary increase formula clearly substantiates the principle in the CBA that 65% of the appropriate revenues will be allocated to unit members. The Board’s interpretation harmonizes the potential conflict between provisions of the CBA and so “gives a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all the terms” as provided in Civil Code 1641. “Line 1100” is not a technical term under Civil Code section 1645 because it is not a term understood by the union negotiators, who are teachers and who are not school district budget officers. The parties’ outward expressions supports the Board’s interpretation as shown in District spreadsheets with a line item for “unit member salaries.” Looking at bargaining history and the parties’ testimony, substitute teachers, walk-on coaches, and summer school and independent study teachers are not members of the bargaining unit.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.03000 – General Principles of Contract Interpretation

When interpreting collective bargaining agreements, the Board applies traditional rules of contract law, such as the provisions of Civil Code sections 1638 and 1641. This guidance is used in unilateral change cases. Every contract requires mutual assent and the outward manifestation or expression of assent is controlling. Where the contract language is silent or ambiguous, the policy may be ascertained by examining past practice or bargaining history. Looking at the surrounding provisions under the principle of “noscitur a sociis,” the salary increase formula clearly substantiates the principle in the CBA that 65% of the appropriate revenues will be allocated to unit members. The Board’s interpretation harmonizes the potential conflict between provisions of the CBA and so “gives a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all the terms” as provided in Civil Code 1641. “Line 1100” is not a technical term under Civil Code section 1645 because it is not a term understood by the union negotiators, who are teachers and who are not school district budget officers. The parties’ outward expressions supports the Board’s interpretation as shown in District spreadsheets with a line item for “unit member salaries.” Looking at bargaining history and the parties’ testimony, substitute teachers, walk-on coaches, and summer school and independent study teachers are not members of the bargaining unit.