Opinion ID: 1505033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Outsourcing Duties of Permanent Employees Violates Section 168.291

Text: The second issue in this case is whether, under 168.291, the Board may outsource the positions of non-certificated, permanent employees who are placed on leave of absence because of insufficient funds, decrease in pupil enrollment or lack of work. The seminal rule of statutory construction directs this Court to determine the true intent of the legislature, giving reasonable interpretation in light of the legislative objective. ACME Royalty Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 96 S.W.3d 72, 74 (Mo. banc 2002). Construction of statutes should avoid unreasonable or absurd results, Murray v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm'n, 37 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Mo. banc 2001), and the Court has no authority to read into a statute a legislative intent contrary to the intent made evident by the plain language, Kearney Special Rd. Dist. v. County of Clay, 863 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Mo. banc 1993).
Chapter 168, RSMo Supp.2006, regulates the employment practices of Missouri school districts. Section 168.251 reads: 1. All employees of a metropolitan school district shall be appointed and promoted under rules and regulations prescribed by the board of education of the school district. The rules shall be complementary to the provisions of sections 168.251 to 168.291 as to the removal, discharge, suspension without pay or demotion of permanent employees and not in derogation thereof. The word employee or employees as used in this section means all employees, male or female, except certificated employees. Once a non-certificated employee has completed the applicable probationary period, he or she obtains permanent status. Sec. 168.281.1, RSMo Supp.2006. [4] The statutory scheme prevents school districts from treating permanent employees as at will employees. Sections 168.211 to 168.291, RSMo Supp.2006 (governing the termination of all employees from the Superintendent to non-certificated permanent employees). The Board may not rescind its decision to employ an individual without complying with those sections. The plaintiff engineers in this case are non-certificated permanent employees and, as such, termination of their employment is governed by sections 168.281, RSMo Supp. 2006, and 168.291. Under section 168.281.2(1), RSMo Supp. 2006, permanent employees may not be terminated except for cause or upon attainment of the age of compulsory retirement. [5] However, the protections granted to non-certificated permanent employees under 168.281, RSMo Supp.2006, shall not in any way restrict or limit the powers of the board of education to make reductions in the number of employees because of insufficient funds or decrease in pupil enrollment or lack of work. Sec. 168.281.3. [6] The power of the Board to make those reductions is governed by section 168.291. Section 168.291 reads, in relevant part: Whenever it is necessary to decrease the number of employees because of insufficient funds or decrease in pupil enrollment or lack of work the board of education may cause the necessary number of employees, beginning with those serving probationary periods, to be placed on leave of absence without pay, but only in the inverse order of their appointment. Each employee placed on leave of absence shall be reinstated in inverse order of his placement on leave of absence. Such reemployment shall not result in a loss of status or credit for previous periods of service. No new appointments shall be made while there are available employees on leave of absence who have not attained the age of seventy years and who are adequately qualified. (emphasis added). The statute expressly states that once the Board, in its discretion, determines it necessary to lay off employees because of insufficient funds or decrease in pupil enrollment or lack of work, the Board may not make new appointments while employees under the age of seventy and adequately qualified remain on leave and available to work.
The question, then, is whether the outsourcing of the stationary engineer positions by the Board constitutes new appointments. These words are not defined in the statute. However, the word appoint is defined in Webster's as designate, or place in office or post, and the word appointment is defined as designation of a person to perform a function. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1981. Sections 168.281, RSMo Supp.2006, and 168.291 were enacted to ensure non-certificated employees of schools a minimal level of job security. Section 168.281, RSMo Supp.2006, prohibits the termination of an employee for reasons other than cause or compulsory retirement. Section 168.291 permits the Board to decrease the number of employees, but only for a finite number of reasons: because of (1) insufficient funds; (2) decrease in pupil enrollment; or (3) lack of work. Sec. 168.291. The Board may place the necessary number of employees on leave, but no more. Id. The Board may not arbitrarily lay off employees; it is required to do so in inverse order of appointment. Id. Finally, the statute establishes the right of the employees to be recalled, thereby providing those employees with some protection in the event they are placed on a leave of absence. Employees shall be reinstated in inverse order of their placement on leave, and no new appointments shall be made while available employees remain on leave. Id. The outsourcing of jobs while employees remain on leave is inherently inconsistent with the three allowable grounds for layoff under 168.291. The intent to provide job security evidenced by the statute would be rendered irrelevant if the Court were to hold that the Board is allowed to outsource the positions of employees placed on leave of absence pursuant to section 168.291. If sufficient funds, work, or an adequate number of pupils exist, section 168.291 expressly forbids the Board from directly hiring others to perform the jobs of the furloughed employees. The Board cannot frustrate the statute by indirectly contracting with third parties to accomplish the very same thing. New individuals placed in the same jobs as former Board employees constitute new appointments under section 168.291 whether they are direct hires or hired by way of an outsourcing contract. This holding should not be interpreted as preventing the Board from placing the necessary number of stationary engineers on leave. Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Board and second guess the Board's determination that placing Plaintiffs on leave is necessitated by insufficient funds. The Court only holds that the term new appointments contained in section 168.291 includes the practice of outsourcing.