Opinion ID: 1982121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: first vacancy

Text: The Tenure Commission, circuit court, and Court of Appeals all held that plaintiff was entitled to recall beyond the first vacancy, and, thus, the right to recall is not extinguished as a matter of law by refusal. The Court of Appeals reasoning [t]hat a teacher is entitled to the first available position sheds no light on whether refusal of that position destroys all of the teacher's right under the Act. We believe the first vacancy provision, MCL 38.105; MSA 15.2005, is a legislative statement of priority. That is, the Legislature has made a clear directive that a school board must offer the first vacancy, not a vacancy chosen by the board. Therefore, the wording of this provision neither precludes additional vacancy offers, nor in our view does it guarantee recall offers ad infinitum. Because the teacher tenure act is a relatively skeletal act and was enacted before the Legislature published its own analysis, the limits of the first vacancy provision are not readily discerned. As we have in the past, however, we give great weight to the expertise of the Tenure Commission where there are gaps in the statutory scheme. Magreta v Ambassador Steel Co (On Rehearing), 380 Mich 513; 158 NW2d 473 (1968). Indeed, the varied analyses by the commission, courts, parties, and amicus curiae are all worthy of consideration. [3] Hence, we urge legislative attention to MCL 38.105; MSA 15.2005, in order to define the rights of laid-off teachers and the duties of controlling school boards.