The Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521 (Guild) filed three grievances against the Los Angeles Community College District on behalf of faculty members at different campuses.
Julie Washenik and Christine Park, faculty at Los Angeles City College, filed a grievance alleging that the District failed to complete several safety-related construction projects, such as emergency lighting, security cameras, locks, and fencing. They claimed this violated the collective bargaining agreement and asked the District to complete the projects by February 2023. The District denied the grievance, explaining that it had already funded the projects using bond proceeds from voter-approved Measures CC and LA and that it was progressing in accordance with applicable building codes and state oversight.
Michael Williams, a Pierce College faculty member, filed a grievance after the District notified him that it would not renew his specially funded faculty position for the 2023–24 academic year. Williams argued that he had a right to continued employment under Education Code section 87470, and alternatively, that he held tenure, which protected him from dismissal absent cause under section 87732. He claimed the District violated both the Education Code and internal Human Resources policies. He requested reinstatement, full benefits, and tenure status. The District denied his grievance, stating that Williams held a non-tenure-track position that ended when its funding expired.
Pavel Karasik, a faculty member at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, filed a grievance after CalPERS determined he lacked sufficient service credit to qualify for retirement. Karasik alleged that the District misreported his earnings, which lead to the CalPERS denial. He sought corrected reporting to CalPERS, backpay for unpaid wages since 2017, and the right to review recalculated data before submission. The District responded that CalPERS, not the District, determines service credit and retirement eligibility. It explained that it was already working with CalPERS to resolve any reporting issues and directed Karasik to address further concerns with the agency.
After the District denied the grievances, the Guild’s internal committee voted to proceed with arbitration under Article 28 of the CBA. The District refused, arguing that none of the disputes fell within the agreement’s scope for arbitration. The Guild then filed a petition in superior court to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281 and 1281.2.
The trial court granted the petition in part. It ordered arbitration for the backpay portion of the Karasik grievance but denied arbitration for the remaining claims, finding them outside the CBA’s arbitration agreement’s scope. The Guild appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the Guild failed to show that two of the three grievances involved matters subject to arbitration under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), which governs collective bargaining for public school employees. EERA limits bargaining to specific employment terms such as wages, hours, and working conditions. It also includes a “non-supersession clause,” which prohibits CBAs from overriding the Education Code.
For the City College safety grievance, the court of appeal found that the Guild framed the complaint as a safety issue, but in substance, it challenged the District’s administration of bond-funded construction projects. These projects are governed by the Construction Bonds Act, codified in Education Code section 15264, which regulates how school districts must use voter-approved bond funds. Because the grievance sought to influence how the District conducted construction projects under this Act, the court of appeal held that the Education Code preempted the grievance so it was not arbitrable.
The court of appeal reached the same conclusion for Williams’ Pierce College grievance about his employment nonrenewal. The court of appeal held that Williams’ employment status, based on a specially funded position, fell outside EERA’s scope of representation. Resolving the grievance would require interpreting Education Code provisions on faculty employment and dismissal, which the CBA’s arbitration agreement did not authorize.
The court of appeal found that Karasik’s grievance about his CalPERs denial fell partly within the CBA’s arbitration agreement. The court of appeal held that the question of whether Karasik was entitled to backpay based on the District’s alleged reporting errors was arbitrable. However, it held that the other remedies Karasik sought, such as ordering the District to revise data submitted to CalPERS and to allow pre-submission review, exceeded the arbitrator’s authority. The court of appeal emphasized that the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (Gov. Code § 20000 et seq.), which governs CalPERS, controls service credit determinations. The CBA’s arbitration agreement did not permit arbitrators to issue injunctive relief, only limited monetary remedies.
The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling. It affirmed the denial of arbitration for the safety and employment termination grievances and allowed arbitration only on the limited issue of backpay in the retirement benefits grievance.
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (Apr. 10, 2025, No. B339084) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 286].