Reduction in force and the probationary
teacher
Probationary teachers have few statutory job protections
in Missouri. Simply stated, a probationary teacher has no
legal right to continuation of his or her job from one year
to the next. If the school district administration decides
to non-renew a probationary teacher, the teacher has no legal
recourse, absent a constitutional violation or discrimination.
Many of these cases are resolved through grievances and board
hearings at the local level, requiring organizing of the community.
However, this is not the case with respect to a layoff, or
reduction in force (RIF).
Section 168.124 RSMO governs teacher layoffs. This statute
provides that a district may layoff teachers when one of three
conditions is met. Those conditions are a decrease in pupil
enrollment, school district reorganization or the financial
condition of the school district.
Most of the layoff provisions of Section 168.124 confer protections
on tenured teachers, but several provide protections for all
teachers. Subsection (4) states, “No appointment of
new teachers shall be made while there are available teachers
on unrequested leave of absence who are properly qualified
to fill such vacancies.” This subsection previously
referred to “permanent” teachers, but in 1993
the word “permanent” was removed, indicating a
legislative intent to provide recall rights to probationary
teachers on layoff. Subsection (7) states, “the leave
of absence shall continue for a period of not more than three
years unless extended by the board.”
Many districts in Missouri have attempted to thwart the recall
rights of probationary teachers by simply non-renewing instead
of laying off. It is Missouri NEA’s position that when
a teacher loses his or her job in the district because of
the financial condition of that district, the teacher has
been laid off, not non-renewed, regardless of what the district
chooses to call it.
If Sections 168.124(4) and (7), conferring recall rights
for three years, are to have any meaning for probationary
teachers, then a district should not be able to do an end
run around them by simply non-renewing probationary teachers.
Instead, the district should renew the teachers’ contracts
and then place them on layoff with three years of recall rights.
MNEA is currently challenging the many “non-renewals
for financial reasons” that have occurred over the past
two years and will continue to protect all the rights member
education employees have, however few they may be.
by Jacquie
Shipma
MNEA manager of legal services and human resources
|
