Opinion
No. 76-1136
Decided July 6, 1977.
Schools — Board of education — Re-employment of teachers — Eligible for continuing service status — R.C. 3319.11, construed.
1. The board of education may elect not to re-employ a teacher, eligible for continuing service status, for the following year, provided proper notice of its action is given to the teacher on or before April 30th, as required by R.C. 3319.11.
2. Under R.C. 3319.11, a teacher does not lose his eligibility for continuing service status in a district where the board of education resolves not to re-employ him for the following year.
3. Where the board of education, because of a change of circumstances, rescinds a prior resolution, passed before April 30th, denying a teacher, eligible for continuing service status, re-employment for the following year, it may re-employ such teacher after April 30th under either a limited contract for less than two years or a continuing contract.
4. A teacher, eligible for continuing service status within a school district, who has been granted and has served under a one-time limited contract within that district, must be granted a continuing contract upon any subsequent re-employment within that district.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County.
The following facts are not in dispute. Appellee, Paul Hura, began work as a full-time teacher in the Brookfield Local School District in September, 1970. In February of 1974, he obtained his professional teaching certificate from the state of Ohio, Department of Education and under R.C. 3319.11, became eligible for continuing service status in the Brookfield Local School District for the following 1974-1975 school year.
However, during April of 1974, the Board of Education of Brookfield Local School District (hereinafter "board") and the Brookfield Federation of Teachers were conducting negotiations concerning salary increases. On April 29, 1974 (after demands by the Brookfield Federation of Teachers for retroactive salary increases and a 60 percent share in all new monies received by the board), the board passed a resolution terminating the positions of eight certified teachers, including appellee Hura, to be effective in September, 1974. The board expressly conditioned the re-employment of these teachers upon agreement by the teacher's federation that there would be no salary increases or additional benefits until January 1, 1975.
Having reached an acceptable agreement with the teacher's federation on May 22, 1974, wherein the board rescinded its action of April 29th and agreed to grant employment contracts to the eight certified teachers for the 1974-1975 school year, the board, upon the recommendation of the superintendent of the Trumbull County Schools that they be re-employed under limited contracts, unanimously affirmed the employment of these teachers for the 1974-1975 school year on May 28, 1974. Although the wording of the board's resolution does not indicate the type of contract the eight teachers were to receive, appellee Hura was offered and eventually signed a limited contract for the 1974-1975 school year, and worked throughout that year.
On April 16, 1975, both the local and county superintendents of schools recommended that Hura be granted a limited contract for the 1975-1976 school year. On April 23, 1975, the local superintendent sent a letter to Hura indicating the board's decision.
However, on April 25, 1975, the board of education received a letter from the county superintendent of schools recommending that Hura not be re-employed for the 1975-1976 school year, and on April 28, 1975, passed a motion rescinding its previous motion to approve the one year limited contract and promptly notified Hura of such action. The record does not reflect the reasons for the change in the school board's decision.
On July 2, 1975, Hura requested the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of mandamus directing the board of education to enter into a contract with him, consistent with his alleged continuing service status under R.C. 3319.11. The writ was granted on September 30, 1976. The court held as follows: "the action of the board in employing * * * [Hura] in May of 1974, conferred upon him continuing contract status with the respondent board."
An appeal is before this court as a matter of right.
Mr. Alan R. Kretzer, for appellee.
Mr. J. Walter Dragelevich, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Edward L. Lavelle, for appellant.
The issue in the instant cause is whether Hura was entitled to a continuing contract for the 1974-1975 or 1975-1976 school years.
When a teacher becomes eligible for continuing service status under R.C. 3319.11, one of three things may occur with respect to his future employment status within the district.
In the first situation, he may be entitled to a continuing contract, as in the case where the board unqualifiedly re-employs him for the following year and thereafter. State, ex rel. Grandy, v. Bd. of Edn. (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 115.
In the second situation, he may be granted a limited service contract, not to exceed two years, provided that: (1) he has not previously attained continuing service status in another district, (2) written notice of the superintendent's intention to make such recommendation has been provided to the teacher on or before April 30th, with reasons directed at the professional improvement of the teacher, and (3) written notice of the board's action upon recommendation of the superintendent has been given to the teacher on or before April 30th. The teacher will be deemed re-employed under a continuing contract if the board does not meet this April 30th deadline.
In the third situation, he may be denied re-employment for the following year, provided the board provides him proper notice of such action on or before April 30th. DeLong v. Bd. of Edn. (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 62; Justus v. Brown (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 53.
In the instant cause, the board passed a resolution, on April 29, 1974, voting not to re-employ Hura for the 1974-1975 school year, and there is no indication in the record that proper notice of such action was not given Hura on or before April 30th. Thus, having chosen not to re-employ Hura, the board took effective action preventing Hura from automatically being deemed re-employed under a continuing contract pursuant to R.C. 3319.11.
Since the board lawfully terminated Hura's employment in April of 1974, the issue then arises as to whether Hura, upon his re-employment in May of 1974, retained his eligibility for continuing service status.
R.C. 3319.11 provides in pertinent part that:
"Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district. * * *"
Thus, the statute requires that a teacher, to become eligible for continuing service status, must work three out of the past five years in the same school district, and no provision is made that after earning such eligibility, a teacher may completely lose it if he fails to be re-employed for a particular year.
For example, if a teacher begins work in a school district in year 1, and is subsequently re-employed in years 2 and 5, the fact that he is not re-employed in years 3 and 4 will not result in his losing credit for years 1 and 2. Once a teacher has achieved eligibility in year 5, the fact that he is not re-employed in year 6, will not result in his complete loss of status, when he subsequently is re-employed in the district.
To construe this part of R.C. 3319.11 otherwise, and hold that a teacher completely loses his eligibility for continuing service status once he is denied re-employment, would create a harsh result not provided for in the statute, nor intended by the General Assembly.
In the instant cause, Hura, having become eligible for continuing service status for the 1974-1975 school year, was denied re-employment in April of 1974. It is clear that when Hura was re-employed in May of 1974 for the 1974-1975 school year, he remained eligible for continuing service status.
Once it is determined that Hura remained eligible under R.C. 3319.11 for continuing service status, the issue then becomes whether the board could lawfully grant Hura a limited contract for the 1974-1975 school year, in May of 1974.
In carefully reading the statutory language of R.C. 3319.11, it should be noted that, as condition precedents for the granting of a limited contract, the statute contains two provisos which specifically require that certain actions be taken before April 30th. These provisos indicate that the General Assembly only provided for the situation in which the board makes a single determination as to the future employment status of a teacher for the following year. No provision is made for the situation, as present in this cause, where the board takes effective action by resolving not to re-employ a teacher before April 30th, but subsequently finds that it is able to re-employ the teacher for the following year.
Certainly, it cannot be contended that the board, in deciding not to re-employ Hura for the following year, made an irrevocable decision once the date of April 30th passed. Such an approach has no basis in the statute, would directly contradict R.C. 3319.07 which places upon the board the ultimate responsibility of hiring teachers, and would result in the loss to the school board of needed flexibility in dealing with the ever-changing economic and social conditions of the school district.
Furthermore, it cannot be contended, in the present situation, that the board could only grant Hura a continuing contract once the April 30th deadline had passed, based on the assumption that it would be impossible for the board to comply with the provisions of R.C. 3319.11, requiring that certain steps be taken prior to April 30th before granting a limited contract. Such an approach completely overlooks the fact that the board, prior to April 30th, took effective action when it resolved not to re-employ Hura. That action was not a futile, meaningless act, since the board thereafter was under no further obligation to the teacher. See Justus, supra; DeLong, supra. Moreover, to contend that upon re-employment, the teacher must be given a continuing contract, could result in substantially impairing the board's ability to hire experienced and qualified teachers, a result clearly not intended by the General Assembly.
This court concludes that, in the situation where a board resolves before April 30th not to re-employ a teacher who is eligible for continuing service status, for the following year, but subsequently, because of a change of circumstances, desires to rescind its prior resolution, it may grant such teacher a limited contract. Thus, in the instant cause, the board could grant Hura in May of 1974 a limited contract for the 1974-1975 school year.
Having concluded that Hura remained eligible for continuing service status at the time of his re-employment in May of 1974, that he was not automatically entitled to a continuing contract for the 1974-1975 year at that time, and that the board properly offered Hura a limited contract for the 1974-1975 school year, this court must finally address itself to the issue of whether the board could properly decide not to re-employ Hura for the 1975-1976 school year in April of 1975.
R.C. 3319.11 specifically provides that once a teacher, eligible for continuing service status, has taught in the district under a limited contract, any subsequent employment must be on a continuing basis. However, such subsequent employment is not a statutory right provided the teacher, and the board may resolve not to re-employ the teacher for the following year.
In the instant cause, Hura, having taught under a one year limited contract for the 1974-1975 school year, was entitled to a continuing contract for the 1975-1976 school year if he were to be re-employed. However, the board decided, before April 30, 1975, not to re-employ Hura, and provided Hura proper notice of its action. Therefore, Hura had no right to a continuing contract for the 1975-1976 school year.
Because Hura presently has no right under R.C. 3319.11 to a continuing contract in the Brookfield Local School District, it was error for the Court of Appeals to grant the writ of mandamus. See Anderson v. Bd. of Edn. (1941), 137 Ohio St. 578; State, ex rel. Finn, v. Garfield Heights (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 5.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.
LOCHER, J., dissents.
R.C. 3319.11 explicitly dictates the manner by which a school board may grant a limited contract. In relevant part, R.C. 3319.11 reads:
"* * * The superintendent may recommend re-employment of such teacher * * * under a limited contract * * * provided that written notice of the intention to make such recommendation has been given to the teacher with reasons directed at the professional improvement of the teacher on or before the thirtieth day of April, and provided that written notice from the board of education of its action on the superintendent's recommendation has been given to the teacher on or before the thirtieth day of April * * *. If the board of education does not give such teacher written notice * * * before the thirtieth day of April, such teacher is deemed re-employed under a continuing contract * * *." (Emphasis added.)
It is not contended that the board complied with the above statutory condition precedents for the issuance of the limited contract. Instead, the board relied upon a subterfuge in an attempt to extirpate the mandates of R.C. 3319.11. The apparent function of R.C. 3319.11, to bring a necessary clarity to the rights of the school boards and teachers is advantageous to all — the board, the taxpayers, the teachers, and, most importantly, the students. The instant termination of employment during the contract negotiations between the board and the Federation of Teachers, with the subsequent limited rehiring, aptly demonstrates the uncertainty and the attendant caustic relationship between the board and teachers that acceptance of this proposed circumvention would create.
Adherence to the requirements expressed within R.C. 3319.11 leaves the board with final control in decisions of employment, subject only to the necessary procedural safeguards of the teachers. the board's contention is untenable in that it can not be inferred from the wording of R.C. 3319.11 and would render this provision ineffectual in the prevention of similar occurrences.
I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.