Berkeley Federation of Teachers v. Berkeley Unified School District

Opinion

SABRAW, J. Berkeley Unified School District (District) and the Governing Board of the Berkeley Unified School District (Governing Board) appeal from a judgment ordering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing them to reclassify respondent Nancy Edwards as a probationary [777]teaching employee of the District. Respondent Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078, AFT, AFL-CIO (the Union), joined with Edwards in bringing the petition for writ of mandate which resulted in the judgment. The issue presented is whether a school district is required to analyze the workload of a teacher on a semester basis or on a school year basis for purposes of classifying the teacher pursuant to Education Code section 44887. We hold, on the facts of this case, that the District was permitted to view Edwards’ workload on a school year basis and, therefore, reverse the judgment.

I. The Facts and Procedure

As is common in the superior courts, this matter was heard on declarations and documentary evidence without oral testimony. The evidence before the trial court consisted of the verified petition, the verified response, the declaration of Richard E. Endsley, director of certificated personnel for the District, and the declaration of respondents’ counsel which authenticated a series of letters between him and Mr. Endsley.1 It should be noted at the outset that the trial court did not have the benefit of the necessary definitive evidence concerning the length of the employment contract. As will be seen this missing evidence was critical to our decision on appeal and accounts for the reversal.

Edwards was originally employed by the District during the 1975-1976 school year and since the 1977-1978 school year she has been continuously employed by the District as a “temporary,” i.e., “hourly” adult school teacher. The pleadings and evidence before the trial court were not reasonably susceptible of any meaningful inference concerning the length or duration of Edwards’ contract with the District for the 1982-1983 school year in question. Her contract was never made part of the record below. We have the authority, in such a situation, to offer the parties the opportunity to submit additional evidence, such as the contract in question, to aid our resolution. Code of Civil Procedure section 909 provides in relevant part: “In all cases where the trial by jury is not a matter of right ... the reviewing court may make factual determinations contrary to or in addition to those made by the trial court. . . . The reviewing court may . . . take additional evidence of or concerning facts occurring at any time prior to the decision of the appeal . . . .” (See 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 651, pp. 631-632.)