|
Education Law
Alert
NON-RENEWAL OF
ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACTS
by Marshall W.
Grate
The deadlines
are fast approaching for non-renewal of administrative contracts
under Section 1229 of the Michigan Revised School Code, MCL
380.1229. This statute contains two crucial deadlines for
non-renewing an administrator's contract. The statute requires
written notice of non-renewal of an administrative contract at least
60 days before the termination date of the contract, which typically
is June 30. In addition, before the 60 days notice, the
board of education is required to provide at least 30 days advance
notice to the administrator that the board is considering non-renewal
together with a written statement of the reasons, which cannot be
arbitrary or capricious. If these deadlines are not followed,
then the contract is automatically renewed for an additional one-year
period.
Assuming that
the administrative contract expires June 30, this means that the
board must enact a resolution of non-renewal on or before Saturday,
May 1, 2010 in order to satisfy the 60-day notice
requirement.
The 30 days
advance notice that the board is considering non-renewal should be
sent on or before Thursday, April 1, 2010. Typically, it is
recommended that a letter be sent to the administrator advising that
the Board is going to consider non-renewal of their contract at a designated
April Board meeting. The notice should identify the reasons for
non-renewal. After issuance of this written statement, the
affected administrator must be given an opportunity to meet with not
less than a majority of the Board to discuss the reasons for
non-renewing his contract.
If the Board
fails to provide a meeting, or if the reasons for non-renewal are
arbitrary and capricious, then the contract renews for another
year. These requirements apply to administrators other than the
superintendent. If you have questions regarding non-renewal of
an administrator's contract under Section 1229, please contact your
Clark Hill PLC education law attorney.
CIRCUIT COURT
AFFIRMS ARBITRATOR RULING ON SCHOOL BOARD'S RIGHT TO SUBCONTRACT
DURING THE TERM OF THE LABOR CONTRACT
By Barbara A.
Ruga
In a case handled by our office, a
Kent County Circuit Court Judge upheld an arbitrator's ruling, which
has affirmed the right of a school district board to subcontract
transportation services during the term of an existing labor contract
with the affected support staff employees. After five years of
litigation, a prior decision of the Grand Rapids Board of Education
to subcontract non-instructional support services when one year was
left on the support staff contract, has been confirmed by both an
arbitrator and the circuit court.
On May 11, 2005, with a year remaining
on its current collective bargaining agreement, the Grand Rapids
Board of Education voted 5-4 to subcontract transportation services
to Dean Transportation. In response, the MEA bargaining unit
representative, the Grand Rapids Educational Support Personnel
Association (GRESPA), filed a grievance, a
lawsuit against Dean Transportation and an unfair labor practice
charge.
The grievance was assigned to
Arbitrator Paul Glendon. Initially, Mr. Glendon ruled that the
grievance was not arbitrable. That
decision was vacated by the Kent County Circuit Court (Judge Kolenda, now retired) and remanded back to Mr.
Glendon for a hearing on the merits of the grievance. During
the processing of the grievance, GRESPA
withdrew its unfair labor practice charge and settled its lawsuit
against Dean.
After four days of hearing spread over
two years, on September 29, 2009, Arbitrator Glendon issued a lengthy
opinion ruling in favor of the District. He found that the
2004-2006 labor contract "did not prohibit subcontracting"
and that a prohibition could not be reasonably inferred from the
contract's express terms. In reaching this decision, the
Arbitrator reviewed bargaining history, prior grievances and a 1994
MERC decision, all of which supported the District's right to
subcontract before PA 112 was passed. In addition, the
Arbitrator concluded that in light of PA 112, a prohibition on subcontracting
could not be inferred, as GRESPA argued.
On March 5, 2010, the Kent County
Circuit Court concluded that the Arbitrator "acted within the
scope of his authority and that the award 'draws its essence' from
the CBA. The Arbitrator carefully considered
the arguments before him by considering several sources proffered by
both parties as he may, in interpreting that the CBA
did not prohibit subcontracting. Having found so, 'judicial review
effectively ceases.'"
The Court's decision is not binding on
other circuit courts, and the decision may be appealed. As
always, each case depends on its own facts and circumstances;
furthermore, the Board's initial decision occurred before the recent
amendment to PERA with respect to subcontracting. Nonetheless,
this decision may provide additional options to districts in these
difficult economic times.
If you have any questions about the
subcontracting of non-ionstructional
support services, please contact your Clark Hill Education Practice
Group attorney.
|
