California School Employees Ass'n v. Tamalpais Union High School District
This text of 159 Cal. App. 3d 879 (California School Employees Ass'n v. Tamalpais Union High School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion
California School Employees Association (hereafter CSEA) petitioned the Superior Court of Marin County for a writ of mandate to compel Tamalpais Union High School District (hereafter the District) to pay its classified employees holiday pay for February 13, 1981, plus interest and attorney’s fees.
The court tentatively decided in favor of requiring appellant to pay the holiday rate plus interest but denied the prayer for attorney’s fees. The court [881]*881then entered judgment in favor of CSEA and issued a writ of mandate compelling the District to pay the appropriate wages plus interest. The District appeals.
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the District, in giving its certificated employees February 13, 1981, off, had declared a holiday within the meaning of Education Code1 section 37222,2 which obligated it to give a holiday to its classified employees under section 45203.3 Section 45203 then provided that all holidays given to certificated employees under section 1318 or section 37222 shall be given to classified employees, with certain exceptions.
February 13, 1981, Friday and the day after Lincoln’s birthday, was listed as a local holiday on the District’s calendar for certificated employees. The District, however, contends that a “holiday” within the meaning of section 45203 was not declared for certificated employees on February 13, 1981. It reads “holiday” under section 37222 to mean a commemoration. However, section 37222 does not define “holiday,” but in another context it has been defined as “ ‘(1) a consecrated day, a religious festival; (2) a day on which the ordinary occupations are suspended, a day of exemption, i.e., cessation from work, a day of festivity, recreation, or amusement; and a legal holiday is a day designated and set apart by legislative enactment for one or more of such purposes.’ ” (Vidal v. Backs (1933) 218 Cal. 99, 105 [21 P.2d 952, 86 A.L.R. 1134].) Clearly, February 13, 1981, was an exemption or cessation from work and would therefore constitute a “holiday.” [882]*882The fact that the sections subsequent to section 37222 describe commemorative holidays does not support the District’s conclusion that governing boards may declare local holidays only to commemorate events.
The District argues that February 13 was not a paid day off for certificated employees and therefore was not a holiday. However, as its own director of personnel admitted, certificated employees are not paid for holidays but only for days worked, so clearly a day off need not be paid in order to be a holiday.4 For February 13, 1981, to qualify as a paid holiday for classified employees, it need only have been a holiday for certificated employees within the meaning of section 37222—whether or not paid. (57 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 116, 118 (1974).)
The District further contends that since the governing board is empowered under section 45203 to create separate work schedules for certificated and classified employees, it could give certificated employees a work schedule that had February 13, 1981, as a day off while giving classified employees a work schedule that required them to work on that day.
However, in requiring that local governing boards give the same holidays to classified employees as those given to certificated employees, the Legislature obviously attached a different meaning to the phrase “separate work schedule” than has the District. Under the District’s interpretation, any day given off to certificated employees might easily be characterized either as holiday or as part of a separate work schedule. The power of local governing boards to create separate work schedules is better read to mean that classified and certificated employees may be scheduled to begin and end work at different times of the year or to have different days off each week.
We believe the trial court has correctly applied the law as it existed on the operative date and therefore affirm the judgment.
White, P. J., and Barry-Deal, J., concurred.
Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 31, 1984.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
159 Cal. App. 3d 879, 206 Cal. Rptr. 53, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-school-employees-assn-v-tamalpais-union-high-school-district-calctapp-1984.