Texas Education Agency and Commissioner of Education Michael Moses And La Joya Independent School District v. La Joya Federation of Teachers

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 27, 1999
• Docket: 03-98-00623-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

---

NO. 03-98-00623-CV

---

Texas Education Agency and Commissioner of Education Michael Moses;

and La Joya Independent School District, Appellants

v.

La Joya Federation of Teachers, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 97-12735, HONORABLE PETE LOWRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellee La Joya Federation of Teachers (the "Federation") appealed an adverse decision from the La Joya Independent School District's Board of Trustees (the "Board") to the Commissioner of Education, Michael Moses (the "Commissioner"). La Joya Independent School District (the "District") responded with a plea challenging the Commissioner's jurisdiction, arguing that the Federation had not timely filed its grievance with the Board and that its cause should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies at the local Board level. The Commissioner agreed and dismissed the Federation's appeal. The Federation appealed to the district court, and the district court reversed the decision of the Commissioner. Appellants Texas Education Agency, the Commissioner, and the District ⁽¹⁾ appeal the district court judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision. We will affirm the district court judgment.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 2, 1995, the Board adopted a salary schedule increasing all teachers' salaries. The salary schedule was published in the District's informational newsletter, the Boletin, and copies of the Boletin were placed in the teachers' mailboxes around August 7. The Boletin's headline stated, "Teachers to See Pay Increase." The article explained that the salary increases, which ranged from $1,290 to $1,650, came as a result of the Texas Legislature's increase in the minimum salary schedule. ⁽²⁾ The salary schedule accompanying the article listed a number on the left side, indicating the teachers' years of experience or pay step, and the 1995-1996 gross salary directly across from those numbers. A local newspaper, the Mission Progress Times, published an article August 9 titled "La Joya Will Give Teachers Pay Raise." The article repeated the information stated in the Boletin article, but it did not publish the salary schedule.

On September 22, the teachers received their first paychecks under the new salary schedule. According to the Federation, with these paychecks the teachers realized for the first time that while the state minimum salary had been increased, the local supplement paid the previous year by the District had been decreased. ⁽³⁾ Apparently there was some confusion over the salary issue, because the District distributed a flier after the teachers received their paychecks announcing that information sessions on the salary schedule would be held on September 26 and September 27, and the flier invited "[a]ll teachers desiring additional information or clarification" to attend. The flier included a chart illustrating the salary schedule. That chart listed the teachers' years of experience or pay step in the far left column, the 1995-1996 state minimum salary in the next column, and the actual salary to be paid to the teachers, depending on the teachers' level, in the next four columns. The amount of the local supplement being added to the state minimum salary is easily discernable from this chart.

The Federation filed a grievance with the District superintendent on October 5, 1995, alleging that on or about September 26, 1995, the Board violated the teachers' contracts by reducing the local supplement after the teachers became obligated to perform on those contracts. The District's employee complaint policy, identified as "DGBA (LOCAL)" ⁽⁴⁾ requires an employee to present any grievances within fifteen days "of the time the employee first knew or should have known of the event or series of events causing the complaint." The Board heard the Federation's complaint at its October 25 meeting. Although there is no record of the District's argument in the Board's minutes of the October 25 meeting, the District's position is that the teachers knew or should have known of the reduction in the local supplement after the Board meeting approving the new salary schedule August 2, or, at the very latest, after the Boletin was distributed to the campuses and placed in all the teachers' mailboxes on August 7. The Board denied the Federation's grievance at a November 29 Board meeting because the grievance "was not filed in a timely manner."

The Federation appealed the Board's decision to the Commissioner. ⁽⁵⁾ In the District's answer, it alleged that the Commissioner was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Federation had not timely filed its grievance before the Board. The Commissioner based his decision on the District's jurisdictional challenge, finding that:

4. On August 2, 1995 [the Board] adopted a salary schedule to be implemented with all current instructional staff. Employees are charged with notice of the public acts of governmental bodies. Employees also were informed of the action of the [B]oard through the distribution of a newsletter August 7, 1995.

The Commissioner concluded that the Federation failed to present its grievance in a timely manner as required by District policy. Accordingly, the Commissioner determined that the Federation's appeal should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies at the local district level. The Federation filed a motion for rehearing, which was overruled by operation of law.

The Federation appealed the Commissioner's order to the district court. See former Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 11.13. The district court ruled that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the decision. Appellants appeal the district court judgment, raising three issues: (1) the district court erred by reversing the Commissioner's decision because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's finding that the Federation did not timely file its grievance; (2) the district court erred by determining that the Federation was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies; and (3) the district court erred by ruling that the District's fifteen day grievance procedure violates the Open Courts provision of the Texas Constitution.

DISCUSSION

We review the Commissioner's finding that the Federation did not timely file its grievance under the substantial evidence standard of review. See Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Commissioner of Educ., 775 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no writ). In a substantial evidence review, we must first determine whether the evidence as a whole is such that reasonable minds could have reached the conclusion the agency must have reached in order to take the disputed action. See Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Sizemore, 759 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. 1988); Texas Educ. Agency v. Goodrich Indep. Sch. Dist., 898 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. App.--Austin 1995, writ denied). The test is not whether the agency made the correct conclusion, but whether some reasonable basis exists in the record for the agency's action. See Texas Health Facilities v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Tex. 1984). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency and may consider only the record on which the agency based its decision. See Sizemore, 759 S.W.2d at 116. Furthermore, the reviewing court is prohibited from substituting its judgment as to the weight of the evidence of questions committed to agency discretion. See Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d at 452.

The agency's findings, inferences and conclusions are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, and the appealing party bears the burden of showing a lack of substantial evidence. See id. at 453. The appealing party cannot meet this burden merely by showing that the evidence preponderates against the decision. See id. at 452. If substantial evidence would support either affirmative or negative findings, the reviewing court must uphold the order, resolving any conflicts in favor of the agency's decision. See id. at 453.

Appellants argue that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence because the articles in the Boletin and the local newspaper put the teachers on notice that their local supplement had been reduced no later than August 7; therefore, their October 5 grievance to the Board was not timely. The District submitted into evidence the affidavits of the principals of La Joya middle school and La Joya high school. Both principals state in their affidavits that a member of their respective staffs retrieved the copies of the August Boletin, placed in the principals' mailboxes at the District's Central Administration Building, and distributed a copy to each teachers' mailbox. Appellants make much of the fact that the Federation presented no evidence to the Commissioner denying that its members had received the Boletin in their mailboxes, and contend that it was reasonable for the Commissioner to determine that the teachers received notice of the salary schedule deposited in their mailboxes at their place of employment.

Assuming that the teachers did receive and read the Boletin, it is reasonable to believe that a Boletin article entitled "Teachers to See Pay Increase" made the teachers aware that their salaries had been increased. However, there is no reasonable basis in the record for the Commissioner's determination that the Boletin also made the teachers aware that the local supplement had been reduced. In the first two paragraphs, the article explains that the Board approved a new salary schedule that would result in an increase from $1,290 to $1,650 over the 1994-1995 salaries. In the next paragraph, the article explains that the changes were a result of an increase in the state minimum salary schedule. The District personnel director is quoted in that paragraph as saying, "We feel the salary scale will continue to keep us competitive in recruitment and the retention of teachers in our district." Next to the article, a chart titled, "Teacher Salary Schedule" shows the 1995-1996 gross salary for a teacher, depending on his or her years of experience or pay step. There is only one salary figure; the state minimum salary is not shown separately so that a teacher could discern the amount of the local supplement by looking at the chart. The newspaper article merely repeats, nearly verbatim, the Boletin article.

Appellants argue that the affidavit of the middle school principal, which states that after the Boletin was distributed to the teachers, the fact that the Board had decided to lower the supplement was a topic of much discussion among the teachers, supports its contention that the Boletin made the teachers aware that the local supplement had been reduced. The affidavit does not give a specific time frame for the teachers' discussions; it merely states that the discussions occurred after the Boletin was distributed. It does not constitute substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

The Commissioner also stated in his order that the teachers were charged with notice of the public acts of governmental bodies, therefore, the teachers had constructive notice regarding the new salary schedule after the Board adopted the salary increase. On appeal, the Commissioner does not urge that public employees are charged with notice of the public acts of governmental bodies but argues instead that, as a labor organization, the Federation should have known about the Board actions taken August 2. We dispose of this argument by noting that the minutes from the August 2 Board meeting merely state that one Board member "moved to approve Option B - Approximately $25,857,384 for the Teacher Salary Schedule for 1995-1996" and that the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The Board's approval of a budget item did not give the teachers notice that the local supplement they received during the 1994-1995 school year was going to be reduced for the 1995-1996 school year.

Accordingly, we hold that the Commissioner's order finding that the Federation failed to timely present its grievance to the Board is not supported by substantial evidence. Our holding on issue one is dispositive; therefore, we need not address the other issues raised by appellants.

CONCLUSION

The district court judgment is affirmed.

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed: May 27, 1999

Do Not Publish

1. We will refer to the appealing parties collectively as appellants.

2. The Texas Education Code requires a school district to pay each classroom teacher a minimum monthly salary and currently provides an equation to calculate the salary. See Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.402 (West 1996 & Supp. 1999). Before the current method of calculating the minimum monthly payment, the Education Code listed the actual amount a teacher should be paid. During the 1995 Legislative session, the Texas Legislature increased the monthly amount, and made that amount effective from May 30, 1995, through September 1, 1996. See Act of May 27, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 260, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2207, 2278 (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.4011, expired).

3. During the 1994-1995 school year, the District paid its teachers a local salary supplement above the state minimum salary. The local supplement ranged from $6,000 to $6,300.

4. The parties do not define the acronym "DGBA." For convenience, the DGBA (LOCAL) will be referred to as "District policy."

5. Act of May 31, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 889, § 1, 1969 Tex. Gen. Laws. 2736, 2757 (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 11.13, repealed and recodified at Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 7.057 (West 1996)). We will refer to the repealed statute as "former Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 11.13."

e teachers aware that the local supplement had been reduced. In the first two paragraphs, the article explains that the Board approved a new salary schedule that would result in an increase from $1,290 to $1,650 over the 1994-1995 salaries. In the next paragraph, the article explains that the changes were a result of an increase in the state minimum salary schedule. The District personnel director is quoted in that paragraph as saying, "We feel the salary scale will continue to keep us competitive in recruitment and the retention of teachers in our district." Next to the article, a chart titled, "Teacher Salary Schedule" shows the 1995-1996 gross salary for a teacher, depending on his or her years of experience or pay step. There is only one salary figure; the state minimum salary is not shown separately so that a teacher could discern the amount of the local supplement by looking at the chart. The newspaper article merely repeats, nearly verbatim, the Boletin article.

Appellants argue that the affidavit of the middle school principal, which states that after the Boletin was distributed to the teachers, the fact that the Board had decided to lower the supplement was a topic of much discussion among the teachers, supports its contention that the Boletin made the teachers aware that the local supplement had been reduced. The affidavit does not give a specific time frame for the teachers' discussions; it merely states that the discussions occurred after the Boletin was distributed. It does not constitute substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

The Commissioner also stated in his order that the teachers were charged with notice of the public acts of governmental bodies, therefore, the teachers had constructive notice regarding the new salary schedule after the Board adopted the salary increase. On appeal, the Commissioner does not urge that public employees are charged with notice of the public acts of governmental bodies but argues instead that, as a labor organization, the Federation should have known about the Board actions taken August 2. We dispose of this argument by noting that the minutes from the August 2 Board meeting merely state that one Board member "moved to approve Option B - Approximately $25,857,384 for the Teacher Salary Schedule for 1995-1996" and that the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The Board's approval of a budget item did not give the teachers notice that the local supplement they received during the 1994-1995 school year was going to be reduced for the 1995-1996 school year.

Accordingly, we hold that the Commissioner's order finding that the Federation failed to timely present its grievance to the Board is not supported by substantial evidence. Our holding on issue one is dispositive; therefore, we need not address the other issues raised by appellants.

1.