Court Opinion

ID: 9883993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:30:13.49849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:34.138699
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge,
dissenting.
The school district asks us to modify matters of law settled in clear declarations of the Minnesota Supreme Court. The question presented is whether the statutory right of realignment and state law which requires only a license to be “qualified” to teach overrides a, collective bargaining agreement requiring a license and “major” to be a qualified teacher.
a. Jerviss v. Independent School Dist. No. 294: The Legal Effect of Statutory Rights.
“[W]here there is a conflict between the terms of a collective bargaining agreement and the terms of an applicable statute, the statute controls.”’ Jerviss v. Independent School Dist. No. 294, 273 N.W.2d 638, 644 (Minn.1978) (citing International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 320 v. City of Minneapolis, 302 Minn. 410, 225 N.W.2d 254 (1975)). The fact that the parties have fully negotiated a plan, as they were authorized to do by the legislature, does not defeat this rule. Jerviss, 273 N.W.2d at 644. In Jerviss, a teacher was entitled to procedures including notice and a hearing prior to placement on unrequested leave, as guaranteed in section 125.12, subd. 4 and subd. 6b(j), notwithstanding the collective bargaining agreement which did not state such rights. Jerviss, 273 N.W.2d at 645.
The Jerviss court expressly stated that “[t]he same reasoning can be applied to other provisions of subdivision 6‘b. ” Id. (emphasis added). The rule was ratified in 1984 in Atwood: “[t]he clear import of Jerviss is that the presence of a plan negotiated under Minn.Stat. § 125.12, subd. 6a (1982), does not abrogate or eliminate any other statutory rights under section 125.-12.” Atwood v. Independent School District No. 51, 354 N.W.2d 9, 12 (Minn.1984).
b. Realignment: A Statutory Right.
The supreme court in Strand defined a teacher’s “position” for the purposes of statutory rights which are stated in subdivision 6b.1 Strand v. Special School District No. 1, 392 N.W.2d 881, 884-85 (Minn.1986). The court rejected the district’s contention that a “position” consists of the particular combination of each teacher’s assigned subject matter, hours of service, and location, and consequently elimination of an assignment is grounds for termination of its holder. Strand, 392 N.W.2d at 884-85. Rather, the court decided that a teacher’s position is determined by consideration of the following factors:
the teacher’s length of service, the duration and scope of the teacher’s license, the school district’s needs reflecting the welfare of the students and the public, and the ease of reassignment or realignment of course schedules to facilitate a retention of the most senior teachers.
Strand, 392 N.W.2d at 885. This test could be no clearer if accomplished by legislative amendment.
Consideration of these factors under the facts in Strand “mandate[d] a reasonable realignment of course assignments for the *853protection of [Strand’s] seniority rights.” Id. The test for position is thus the source of the rule of realignment: where “practical and reasonable, a school district is required to reassign teaching duties in a manner designed to continue the employment of senior teachers.” Id. at 886.2
Recognizing the potential difficulties the transferred senior teacher might face because of the rule, the supreme court stated
[t]he holder of multiple licenses enjoys better likelihood of continued employment in the event of reductions in the teaching staff and also receives additional compensation based on the multiple licenses; however, at the same time, the multiple licensed teacher must be subject to assignment in any subject area in which the teacher is qualified by license.

Id.

A contract in Westgard v. Independent School District No. 745, 400 N.W.2d 341 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 1987) required that teachers be placed on leave in order of least seniority, and be reinstated to positions for which they are certified in the order of greatest seniority. This court found the contractual provisions to be nearly identical to the reinstatement provisions in section 125.12, subd. 6b, and similar to the provisions in the Teacher Tenure Act as well. Id. at 343. Neither expressly provided the right to realignment. Id. at 344. Without explicitly deciding whether the contract or the statute governed the teachers’ rights, the court reaffirmed that teachers have the right to realignment, which it defined as
shifting positions and reassignment of a more senior teacher to accommodate a less senior teacher so that the least senior teacher is eventually laid off or placed on unrequested leave of absence.
Id. at 345 (emphasis in original).
As for the senior teacher who must be transferred, Westgard clearly followed the supreme court by requiring multiple licensed teachers to be “subject to assignment in any subject area in which the teacher is qualified by license.” Id. at 346 (quoting Strand, 392 N.W.2d at 886). Teachers have a right to realignment despite a negotiated contract that does not expressly provide such a right.
c. Thomas Nelson’s “Position”: The Facts on Realignment.
Thomas Nelson is senior to teachers in social studies and driver’s education, who were retained this school year. Three teachers senior to Nelson in industrial arts are also licensed in social studies, and four teachers senior to Nelson are also licensed in driver’s education. Under the statute, any of them could be transferred to the other department in which they hold licen-sure, bumping a teacher less senior than Nelson, and creating a vacancy in industrial arts for Nelson.
As all of these senior teachers hold licenses in the proposed areas of transfer, they are duly qualified under state law. Minn.Stat. § 125.04 (1986) (a qualified teacher is defined as “one holding a valid license * ⅜ * to perform the particular service for which employed in a public school.”) The Strand realignment rule is based on seniority rights according to statutory licensure.
The agreement provides that to be qualified to teach in a particular area, the teach*854ers must hold a license as well as a major in that area. Thus, the district argues, the realignment doctrine does not permit transfer of teachers qualified only under the statute. It is true that, as in Blank, the teacher(s) sought to be realigned are not “qualified” under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. See Blank v. Independent School District No. 16, 393 N.W.2d 648, 653 (Minn.1986). But the issue is whether this agreement overrides statutory realignment rights. The law is clear that where the statute conflicts with a collective bargaining agreement, the statute controls. See Jerviss, 273 N.W.2d at 644. Further, the contract provision on qualifications did not require experience but rather certain educational background, which is also the basis for licensure. The distinction between a “major” and a “license” is insufficient to disregard the statutory right.
In addition, the contract is silent on realignment, and there is no indication that the qualifications required were intended to override realignment rights. The silence of the contract should not prevent teachers from exercising their Strand statutory right to realignment.
d. Conclusion.
The school district asks us to disregard the law set forth in Strand. The district has challenged the law by failing to consider a realignment scheme to protect Nelson’s seniority rights, and the district now asks for a court decision to sanction its actions. Existing law does not permit us to do so. I respectfully dissent.

. Minn.Stat. § 125.17, at issue in Strand, permits teachers to "hold their respective position during good behavior and efficient and competent service,” subd. 3, and states that teachers discharged on grounds of "[d]iscontinuance of position " receive “first consideration for other positions in the district for which that teacher is qualified,” subd. 4(5) (emphasis added).
Section 125.12 also uses the term "position” in subdivisions 6a and 6b. Under 6a, the contract may provide for unrequested leave of absence “for as many teachers as may be necessary because of discontinuance of position." Section 6b also permits termination for "discontinuance of position " and states that no permanent teacher may be placed on ULA while probationary teachers "are retained in positions" for which the permanent teacher is licensed," subd. 6b(a). Subdivision 6b(e) states "[tjeachers placed on unrequested leave of absence shall be reinstated to the positions from which they have been given leaves of absence or, if not available, to other available positions in the school district in fields in which they are licensed.” (Emphasis added throughout).

. In Strand, the school district laid off Arlene Strand, a home economics teacher who was also licensed in child development, even though a teacher junior to her, teaching in a different department, was not laid off. The junior teacher, Janell Olson, was retained in her position teaching child development and as work experience coordinator. At the same time the district assigned Jessie Busse, a teacher who was senior to both Strand and Olson, to teach home economics. Busse was also licensed to teach child devclopment and as a work experience coordinator.
Clearly, Strand could not directly "bump” Olson because Strand was not qualified to teach as a work experience coordinator. Strand sought instead to have Busse reassigned so that the two most senior teachers, Strand and Busse, could teach in the three areas, and the least senior teacher, Olson, would be laid off. The supreme court held such a realignment was mandated to protect Strand’s seniority rights. Id.