Kalina v. San Mateo Community College District

Appellant was first employed by respondent college district as a temporary employee to teach 12 units in the fall 1976 semester. She was subsequently employed as a full-time temporary employee for the spring 1977 semester as well as the fall and spring semesters of the 1977-1978 school year, teaching 15 units per semester, for the purpose of replacing, instructors on leave. Although appellant was hired to teach 14 units in the fall of the 1978-1979 school year, respondent college district offered her only a 3-unit teaching assignment for the spring of that year, thus restricting her to 60 percent or less of a full-time teaching assignment in an apparent attempt to prevent her from acquiring vested rights as a probationary employee under section 87482.

Discussion

Appellant’s principal contention is that, since she was employed by respondent college district as a temporary employee in the fall of 1976, teaching more than 60 percent of a full-time assignment, and as a temporary sabbatical replacement in the spring of 1977 teaching full-time, pursuant to Education Code section 87482, respondent college district was required to classify her as a contract or probationary employee (see Ed. Code, § 87602, subd. (a)) when it rehired her full-time for the 1977-1978 school year. On the other hand, respondents argue that this controversy is governed exclusively by section 87481 and maintain that, since appellant was not hired to fill vacant positions, under this section she was not entitled to probationary status when she was rehired for the 1977-1978 school year.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read together and reconciled whenever possible to avoid nullification of one statute by another. (See Fuentes v. Workers‘ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1 , 6-7 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 ]; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331 , 340 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 210 ]). The statutes in the instant case can only be reconciled if, to the extent section 87482 appears inconsistent with section 87481, it is read as a subdivision of that section. Thus, as applied to the instant case, we read section 87481 as concerned with the employment of certificated instructors to replace persons on leave and the classification of such instructors' as temporary employees, subject to the limitation contained in the second paragraph pertaining to the reemployment of such persons to fill vacant positions. As we interpret it, section 87482 contains a further limitation upon the classification of such employees, prohibiting the community colleges from classifying as temporary instructors those persons employed for more than two semesters or quarters within a period of three consecutive years. (See 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 49 (1979).)

Pointing to Education Code section 3 which provides that “[t]he provisions of this code, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing statutory provisions relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments,” respondents submit that sections 87481 and 87482 should be interpreted as reenactments of predecessor statutes. They urge that the interpretation of section 87842 is governed by Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers v. Santa Barbara High Sch. Dist., supra, 76 Cal.3d 223 at page 235 which, in interpreting the term “vacant” of former section 13337.3, the predecessor to section 87481, concluded that school districts might continue indefinitely to hire instructors as temporary

Section 87481, however, applies to community colleges while former section 13337.3 applied to the K-12 system. Section 3 of the reorganized Education Code therefore does not apply. (See Covino v. Governing Board, supra, 76 Cal.App.3d 314 , 322.) Moreover, respondents have overlooked the rule of statutory construction that where specific provisions of different sections of a chapter or article which were intended to take effect at the same time are found to be partially or totally conflicting, the provisions of the section last in numerical order must prevail, unless such construction is inconsistent with the intent of that chapter or article. (See Hartford Acc. etc. Co. v. City of Tulare (1947) 30 Cal.2d 832 , 835 [ 186 P.2d 121 ]; People v. Moroney (1944) 24 Cal.2d 638 , 645 [ 150 P.2d 888 ]; Sanders v. County of Yuba (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 748 , 751 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; Civ. Code, § 23.6.)

To hold, as respondents urge, that section 87481 exclusively controls the instant case would effectively strike a major portion of section 87482, specifically paragraph three. This construction would do violence to a clearly stated legislative intent.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the provisions of the third paragraph of section 87482, as a further limitation on the provisions of section 87481, governs the present controversy. Our holding is in harmony with the general policy of the teacher classification system to afford teachers some measure of employment security. (Curtis v. San Mateo Junior College Dist. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 161 , 165 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) Moreover, because temporary employees are not afforded certain important procedural rights enjoyed by probationary and regular employees, the courts have strictly interpreted the statutes authorizing their employment. (See Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist., supra, 11 Cal.3d 821 , 826; Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers v. Santa Barbara High Sch. Dist., supra, 76 Cal.App.3d 223 , 228, 240.) While it is also the policy of the law authorizing temporary employment of teachers to permit flexibility in teacher assignments and to prevent overstaffing (see Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers, supra, at pp. 232-234; Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Assn. v. Centinela Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 35 , 41 [ 112