Court Opinion

ID: 9679317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:49:05.431979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:12.464597
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gilus, P.J.
(dissenting). I dissent. I would affirm the decision of the circuit court. I would hold that the board’s action in the instant case *62constituted a demotion under MCL 38.74; MSA 15.1974, without following the procedures as set forth in MCL 38.101; MSA 15.2001.
I disagree with the following assertion contained in the majority opinion:
"Since the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated between appellant and appellee’s union contained a provision requiring each teacher to be placed at that particular step which was applicable to his or her experience and education, and since the agreement also provided that the new contract was to supersede any and all previous provisions or rights, appellee’s placement on the salary schedule involved a labor dispute rather than a subject for the commission. The matter was one of contract interpretation.
* * *
"Appellee’s remedy, then, was properly provided for by the grievance procedures included in the collective-bargaining agreement or by exercising her option of initiating a civil suit for breach of contract or violation of other contractual rights. See Shippey v Madison Dist Public Schools, 55 Mich App 663; 223 NW2d 116 (1974); Bruinsma v Wyoming Public Schools, 38 Mich App 745; 197 NW2d 95 (1972), lv den 387 Mich 783 (1972).”
Nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement at issue in any way requires that a teacher be placed at a particular step or how that step is to be calculated. The only reference to years of experience appears on a chart appended to the agreement as Schedule A which lists the salaries which coincide with a particular level of education and experience. Nothing in that appendix, however, describes how experience is to be determined. Indeed, the chart itself does not list salaries based on half-years of experience. In order to arrive at a salary for 8-1/2 years experience, one must extrapolate from the figures given for 8 years and 9 years.
*63Section 1.5 of the contract describes the purpose of the grievance procedure:
"Any teacher, group of teachers, or the Association believing that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any provision of this agreement relating to wages, hours, terms or conditions of employment, may process a grievance as hereinafter provided.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Because the agreement does not address the issue at hand, neither the grievance procedure nor civil suit based on the agreement would be appropriate or effective.
Section 6.1 of the agreement states:
"This agreement shall supersede any rules, regulations or practices of the board which shall be contrary to or inconsistent with its terms. It shall likewise supersede any contrary or inconsistent terms contained in any individual teacher contracts heretofore in effect. All future individual teacher contracts shall be made expressly subject to the terms of this agreement. Copies of this agreement and any amendments shall be presented to all teachers now employed or hereafter employed by the board.”
Because the agreement does not address how the amount of experience is to be calculated, that determination remains subject to individual agreements between the teacher and the board. Fact Stipulation 10 specifically states:
"The placement of appellant on the salary schedule, which initially gave her a full year experience for one-half year of teaching experience, by the former Superintendent of Schools was intentional and her placement was reviewed and accepted by a succeeding Superintendent of Schools * * *.”
The placement of appellee in the salary schedule *64was an administrative decision specifically reserved for the board in Section 2.10 of the agreement and not superseded by the contract.
The calculation of amount of experience, therefore, is not a subject covered by the agreement. It remains to be considered whether appellee’s contention that she was demoted without proper procedures being followed is supported by the record.
Article IV, Section 1 of the tenure act, MCL 38.101; MSA 15.2001, provides, in part:
"Discharge or demotion of a teacher on continuing tenure may be made only for reasonable and just cause, and only after such charges, notice, hearing, and determination thereof, as are hereinafter provided.”
Demotion is defined under the act as follows:
"The word 'demote’ shall mean to reduce compensation or to transfer to a position carrying a lower salary.” MCL 38.74; MSA 15.1974.
The two dissenting members of the five-member Tenure Commission panel which decided the instant case wrote as follows:
"We would extend the definition of demotion to include situations where a teacher with a reasonable expectation of full advancement on the salary schedule adopted by the board is denied that full yearly increment. We believe this extension of the definition complies with the spirit and purpose of the act, to protect teachers from the arbitrary and capricious actions of their employers. See, for example, Rehberg v Bd of Ed of Melvindale, 330 Mich 541 [48 NW2d 142] (1951).”
In adopting the reasoning of the dissenting opinion, the circuit judge wrote:
"In the instant case, appellant received an increase for the 1977-78 school year. However, all other full-time teachers received a full-step salary increase and appel*65lant received only one-half step increase. Appellant’s salary had increased at a full step every year since the 1970-71 school year. She was on step 8 during the 1976-77 school year and rightly expected to be on step 9 the next. Appellee’s deviation from the normal salary schedule constituted a 'demotion’. Appellee’s argument that Farrimond’s salary was not being reduced, but merely 'adjusted’ is mere semantics. The so-called 'adjustment’ is actually a reduction in compensation and the provisions of the tenure act apply.
"This court agrees with the dissenting members of the commission that appellee board created a reasonable expectation in appellant that she would advance a full step for each additional year of service.”
I agree with the opinion of the circuit court.
The commission’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction of this matter is not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record as required by MCL 24.306(l)(d); MSA 3.560(206)(l)(d).
I am not unmindful of the majority’s citation of the Supreme Court’s caution that "[t]he construction given to a statute by those charged with the duty of executing it is always entitled to the most respectful consideration and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons”. Magreta v Ambassador Steel Co (On Reh), 380 Mich 513, 519; 158 NW2d 473 (1968). In the instant case, however, it does not appear that the commission has developed any consistent policy in this area. Only three members of the five-member panel in the instant case decided that appellee teacher had not been demoted. In a later case with facts similar to the instant case, all five members of the commission panel adopted the definition of demotion contained in the circuit court opinion in the instant case. See Highhouse v Bd of Ed of Grand Rapids Public Schools, (State Tenure Commission, Docket No. 82-13).
I would affirm.