Judge Won’t Bar Teacher Pay Cuts : Schools: Ruling that labor board has initial jurisdiction in case staves off insolvency for L.A. district, but possible strike looms. New contract offer is made.

A Superior Court judge cleared the way Wednesday for deep cuts in teachers’ pay, staving off insolvency for the Los Angeles school district and restarting the countdown for a bitter teachers strike in the nation’s second-largest school system.

Judge Stephen E. O’Neil ruled that the Superior Court has “no jurisdiction, no power, no authority” at this time to resolve the labor dispute between United Teachers-Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District. He said under state and case law, a state labor relations board must first try to settle the case.

In dissolving a temporary restraining order that forced the district to issue $20 million in supplemental paychecks to make up for salary cuts that went into effect Nov. 6, O’Neil said he viewed the case primarily as a jurisdictional issue. He rejected the union’s arguments that the district had violated state education codes by imposing a cumulative 12% pay cut on teachers.

“I’m not exactly surprised,” union President Helen Bernstein said. “When you are always David fighting Goliath, you don’t have a lot going for you. . . . The more important issue is that the district has refused to put an offer on the table that our members will feel comfortable accepting.”

She said union leaders will discuss every option open to them, including an appeal of the case. At the same time she will prepare to put the district’s latest offer to a vote of union membership Dec. 7-9.

Teachers will be asked to either accept the terms, which Bernstein denounced as written by someone “who was probably on drugs,” or agree to a strike on a date that will be determined by union leaders next week. A strike would probably take place in mid- or late February, after the winter break, she said.

School board President Leticia Quezada said the board is “greatly, tremendously gratified that this court action has saved the district from bankruptcy,” adding that she hopes the union and the district can reach a contract agreement.

County Supt. of Schools Stuart E. Gothold said in a statement that he was pleased by the ruling and will not initiate insolvency proceedings against the district. He said, however, that he will continue to monitor the district’s precariously balanced budget.

Gothold notified state and district officials last week that he would immediately begin takeover operations of the district if the judge upheld the temporary order. The district, which imposed salary cuts of 6.5% to 11.5% on all full-time employees to help bridge a $400-million deficit, had nearly depleted its emergency reserves to make the first supplemental payment to teachers.

William L. Rukeyser, spokesman for the California Department of Education, said that the state will also continue to closely watch the situation.

“We hope the two sides will be able to resolve this,” Rukeyser said. “Our main concern is the thousands and thousands of kids involved and their parents. Second to that is our concern for the health of the district and the people who work for it. But the prime concern is for the kids who are going to suffer if this crisis blows up in the different ways that it might.”

In his ruling, O’Neil did not mention the threatened insolvency of the district or say whether a last-minute state waiver of education codes at issue in the case influenced his decision.

Instead, he based his ruling on case law and state education and labor codes.

The union contended that several provisions in the state education code prevent the district from cutting pay after the July 1 start of the school year. Union attorney Lawrence Trygstad argued that teachers cannot give up their right to know what their salaries will be, even though the district notified the union last summer that reductions were imminent.

Gordon E. Krischer, an attorney with the firm of O’Melveny & Myers who represented the district, argued that the education code says only that salaries must be set by July 1 and may be increased. He contended that it could not be interpreted to mean that teachers’ salaries cannot be decreased.

The district also argued that the case brought by the union is a labor dispute and the Public Employment Relations Board is the first agency empowered under state law to settle such arguments. Citing the same argument, the state agency joined the case.

O’Neil said that because of ambiguity in the language of the education codes, he did not see a “pure violation” of the provisions cited by the union. The Superior Court could only have jurisdiction in the case if there were a clear violation of those codes, he said.

He found that the state Legislature, through the state employment board, has “in essence set up an administrative agency with the expertise in these labor issues.” The state labor board has the “initial, exclusive jurisdiction” to handle the case, O’Neil said.

Teachers from throughout the sprawling district reacted strongly to the court ruling, which many of them heard about over classroom radios or through the lunchroom grapevine.

“I feel we have really been let down today. . . . I feel like the district has me like a puppet on a string,” said Annya Bell, a teacher at 42nd Street Elementary School in Los Angeles. She began a hunger strike Nov. 16 to protest the cuts but says she will not walk off the job.

But Chuck Serio, who teaches guidance and history classes at Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School on the city’s Eastside, said he is eager to strike.

“Most of the teachers at my school hope there will be a takeover (by either the county or the state),” said Serio, who heads his school’s union chapter. “We feel that is the only way this district is going to get straightened out.”

The threat of district insolvency or government takeover remains, and the dispute between the district and the union appeared to be exacerbated by the court hearing. The two sides now have to wage a two-pronged battle over the cumulative 12% teacher pay cut this year and future salary reductions.

Next week the fight moves to the Public Employment Relations Board, which will consider the legality of the pay cuts and whether the district has engaged in bad faith bargaining. The board has scheduled a private hearing next Thursday in Los Angeles.

On Nov. 2, the state agency, acting on a charge brought by the union, issued a complaint of unfair labor practices against the district for unilaterally imposing the pay cuts during contract negotiations. The complaint also charged that the district has failed to turn over relevant information to the union.

During the informal hearing next week, an administrative law judge will attempt to settle the dispute.

If that is unsuccessful, a formal hearing would be scheduled as soon as possible, at which the judge would issue a ruling and propose an order to end the dispute. If the judge rules against the district, it could again be forced to halt the pay cuts, said Thomas J. Allen, regional attorney for the state labor board.

The order becomes binding if it is not appealed by either side to the full five-member board, appointed by the governor. The board’s ruling can be appealed in the state appellate court. Also, the union could seek another restraining order from the administrative law judge.

Los Angeles Unified Supt. Sid Thompson expressed confidence that the state labor board will uphold the teachers’ pay cuts. “We are optimistic of not having to get into the possibility of insolvency again,” he said.

Thompson said it is likely that the district would recoup the money paid out in the supplemental paychecks through payroll deductions in installments throughout the year “to make it as painless as possible.”

Bernstein said union leaders will begin meetings next week to inform their membership about the offer the district presented Tuesday. The terms do not include a firm guarantee that teacher salaries will not be cut again next year, the issue most important to the union. The other terms include a sick-pay incentive program, a management audit of district operations and a district promise to absorb inflationary budget increases.

Bernstein called it a “nothing offer” and said she will vote to reject it. On Monday, union leaders will make a recommendation to members and set a strike date. After three days of voting, the results are scheduled to be announced Dec. 10.

Bernstein said it is unlikely that the union will appeal the ruling before the results of the vote are known in case the offer is accepted.

“I think the offer yesterday cemented a strike,” Bernstein said. “I can guarantee you if we don’t have a better offer and we vote to go on strike, we will appeal the case. There’s no reason not to.”

Thrown together before a throng of reporters in the courthouse hallway after the hearing, Bernstein confronted Quezada, demanding to know what the district’s budget priorities would be next year. Quezada, tears welling in her eyes, retorted that she would not get into a debate.

“The only thing that accomplishes,” Quezada said, “is to tell the people of Los Angeles, ‘There they go again, they are at each other’s throats.’ ”

Times education writers Larry Gordon and Jean Merl contributed to this story.