Court Opinion

ID: 9579393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:54:40.999445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:29.064705
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, P. J.
This case presents the issue of whether a probationary teacher who is notified only that his teaching position has been eliminated and that he therefore will not be rehired for the next school year nonetheless acquires tenure. We hold that he does acquire tenure.
Defendant was a probationary teacher employed by plaintiff during the 1970-1971 and 1971-1972 school years to teach vocational agriculture. Defendant was advised March 6, 1972 and April 11, 1972, by the school principal and superintendent respectively, that the vocational agriculture program would be terminated and he would not be rehired for the 1972-1973 school year. Defendant was not informed that his work was unsatisfactory.
Plaintiff sought applicants for four other teaching positions during the summer of 1972. Although defendant was certified to teach all of the subjects and applied for at least one of the positions, he was not offered any of the positions. Defendant was told he was not tenured and either that he was not qualified or not the best qualified for any of the positions. Defendant’s request for a hearing before the school board was denied.
*769Defendant petitioned the Teacher Tenure Commission for relief. Following hearings, the commission held that defendant had acquired tenure and that the school board had violated his rights by denying the requested hearing, and ordered reinstatement with back pay. Plaintiff petitioned circuit court for review, which held that defendant had not acquired tenure and that the school board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rehire defendant.
Defendant argues on appeal that he was automatically entitled to tenure when the school board failed to inform him that his work was unsatisfactory, and therefore should have been accorded favored status vis-a-vis nontenured applicants for the above mentioned positions. We agree.
MCLA 38.83; MSA 15.1983 provides:
"At least 60 days before the close of each school year the controlling board shall provide the probationary teacher with a definite written statement as to whether or not his work has been satisfactory. Failure to submit a written statement shall be considered as conclusive evidence that the teacher’s work is satisfactory. Any probationary teacher or teacher not on continuing contract shall be employed for the ensuing year unless notified in writing at least 60 days before the close of the school year that his services will be discontinued.”
The Supreme Court has held that, where a probationary teacher is only notified that he will not be rehired, without being notified that his work was unsatisfactory, he will be entitled to tenure. Munro v Elk Rapids Schools (On Rehearing), 385 Mich 618; 189 NW2d 224 (1971). The rationale for this interpretation of the statute is set forth in the dissenting opinion of Justice T. G. Kavanagh in Munro v Elk Rapids Schools, 383 *770Mich 661, 688-693; 178 NW2d 450, 462-464 (1970), adopted as the opinion of the Court in Munro v Elk Rapids Schools (On Rehearing), supra. The purpose of the act is to limit school board power over employment of teachers in order to prevent abusive employment practices, reduce teacher turnover, and improve education by retaining in their positions qualified, capable teachers of demonstrated fitness. When the above statute is read in conjunction with MCLA 38.91; MSA 15.1991, the clear import "is that upon 'satisfactory completion of the probationary period’ the teacher is entitled to be given tenure by [the] board”. 383 Mich at 692; 178 NW2d at 464.
Plaintiff argues that Munro is distinguishable where a teacher is notified that he will not be rehired because his position will be eliminated, since in that instance it is irrelevant whether or not the teacher’s performance was satisfactory and because there is no danger that such an employee is being discharged for an improper reason. We must reject this argument for several reasons.
First, the wording of MCLA 38.83; MSA 15.1983 does not suggest an exception to the notice of unsatisfactory performance requirement where a teacher’s position will be eliminated.
Second, it is not irrelevant whether or not a teacher’s performance was unsatisfactory, even though the teacher cannot be rehired into a position which no longer exists. MCLA 38.105; MSA 15.2005 provides:
"Any teacher on permanent tenure whose services are terminated because of a necessary reduction in personnel shall be appointed to the first vacancy in the school district for which he is certified and qualified.”
Thus, the teacher who has satisfactorily completed *771probation, acquiring tenure, must be accorded a favored status vis-a-vis nontenured applicants for available positions for which the teacher is certified and qualified.
Third, this interpretation serves the purpose of the act, since it will tend to reduce teacher turnover and insure that qualified teachers of demonstrated fitness will be hired ahead of applicants of untested and speculative ability.
This case has reached us in an erroneous procedural posture. Since the school board denied defendant tenure, he was not a "teacher who has achieved tenure status”, and therefore was not entitled to appeal to the Tenure Commission. MCLA 38.121; MSA 15.2021. Instead, the appropriate remedy was a suit for mandamus in circuit court. GCR 714.1(2); Munro v Elk Rapids Schools, 383 Mich 661, 689 n 3; 178 NW2d 450, 463 n 3 (1970) (T. G. Kavanagh, J., dissenting). However, since the circuit court has already reached and decided the merits of the issue, we will issue mandamus without remanding to circuit court for its reconsideration. GCR 1963, 820.1(7). The school board is ordered to accord defendant tenure.
The Tenure Commission’s determination that the school board violated defendant’s rights by refusing his request for a hearing is erroneous. Anderson v Harper Woods Public School District, 74 Mich App 227; 253 NW2d 718 (1977). Where a school board refuses to consider appointment of a tenured teacher to a vacant position, that teacher has a right of appeal to the Tenure Commission for a determination of whether he is certified and qualified for the position. Upon a determination that the teacher is certified and qualified, the commission shall order reinstatement with back pay. Anderson v Harper Woods Public School Dis*772trict, supra, 74 Mich App at 232; 253 NW2d at 720 (1977) (M. F. Cavanagh, J., concurring). It being undisputed that defendant was certified, we remand to the school board for a determination as to whether defendant was qualified for any of the positions for which he applied.
D. E. Holbrook, J., concurred.