2023 Hawaii Revised Statutes › Title 18. Education › 302A. Education › 302A-624 Teachers' salary schedule.

§302A-624 Teachers' salary schedule.
(a) The salary schedule for all teachers of the department shall be negotiated pursuant to section 89-9.
(b) All teachers shall meet the following requirements:
(1) A teacher shall earn at least five credits within a three-year cycle to receive increment or longevity step increases in the third year of the three-year cycle;
(2) A teacher who fails to meet the requirement set forth in paragraph (1) shall not be eligible for any increment or longevity step increases until the teacher earns the credit requirement for the three-year cycle;
(3) Any credit earned in excess of any three-year credit requirement may not be carried over beyond the three-year cycle; and
(4) Credits earned may be in the form of in-service, university, or other credits approved by the department.
(c) In case of promotion from a teaching position to an educational officer, the employee shall receive compensation at the lowest step of the higher grade that exceeds the employee's existing compensation by at least eight per cent if such a step exists.
(d) Effective July 1, 2006, the minimum hourly or minimum per diem rate for substitute teachers shall be determined by the legislature as follows; provided that any individual in Class I, II, or III who works less than a full seven-hour work day shall be compensated on a pro-rated, hourly basis:
(1) Class I: other individuals who do not possess a bachelor's degree shall be compensated at a rate of not less than $125 for a full work day;
(2) Class II: individuals with a bachelor's degree shall be compensated at a rate of not less than $136 for a full work day; and
(3) Class III: department of education teachers, or licensed or highly qualified teachers, shall be compensated at a rate of not less than $147 for a full work day.
(e) Effective July 1, 2008, the board shall provide wage adjustments for substitute teachers. The wage adjustments shall be comparable to the across-the-board wage adjustments for teachers that are negotiated for bargaining unit (5) subject to legislative approval, pursuant to section 89C-5. The board may also adjust hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment for substitute teachers. [L 1996, c 89, pt of §2; am L 2005, c 70, §1; am L 2006, c 263, §2; am L 2008, c 187, §2; am L 2022, c 146, §2]
Case Notes
As §661-1 contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State that are founded upon a statute or founded upon a contract with the State, the circuit court did not err when it allowed plaintiff substitute teachers to pursue breach-of-contract claims against the State where the teachers were in a contractual relationship with the State, sought money that they claimed were due them for the work they performed under the contract, and alleged that under the express and implied terms of their agreement, they were entitled to pay in accordance with subsection (e). 122 H. 150 (App.), 223 P.3d 215 (2009).
Notwithstanding subsequent changes to the class II classification designation, the 1996 legislature's deliberate choice was to tie a substitute teacher's pay to that of a regular full-time certified teacher based on an appropriate four years of college and other department of education (DOE) requirements; thus, subsection (e) continued to govern the pay terms of the parties' agreement and this section continued to tie the substitute teachers' pay to that of full-time teachers who possessed an appropriate four years of college education and other DOE requirements until June 30, 2005. 122 H. 150 (App.), 223 P.3d 215 (2009).
The State's sovereign immunity from plaintiff substitute teachers' claims against the State was waived under §661-1 where subsection (e) thereof stated that the per diem salary for substitute teachers "shall be" based on the formula that it described, and subsection (e), as a pay-mandating statute, provided an alternative basis for invoking the court's jurisdiction under the "founded upon any statute" language in §661-1. 122 H. 150 (App.), 223 P.3d 215 (2009).
Where the issue of mutual assent as to a per diem rate of pay other than required pursuant to subsection (e) was not material because (1) it was undisputed that an essential and material part of the parties' agreement was that the substitute teachers' pay was "subject to applicable state laws"; and (2) the parties could not contract to violate a law determining a rate of pay, whether it be more or less than directed by the legislature, the circuit court properly granted plaintiff teachers summary judgment on issue that State violated its contractual obligations to pay the per diem rate during the applicable period. 122 H. 150 (App.), 223 P.3d 215 (2009).