Opinion #5602

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)

STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5602

December 3, 1979

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Right of substitute teacher to continuing contract

TEACHERS:

Right of substitute teacher to continuing contract

A substitute teacher who performed teaching duties in excess of 119 days for the school year 1977-1978 is entitled to the first opportunity to accept or reject a contract to fill a position for which the teacher was certified in the 1979-1980 school year after all other teachers have been re-employed for that year in conformity with the collective bargaining agreement.

A substitute teacher's right to carry forward substitute teaching service for the purpose of receiving a continuing contract beyond the succeeding year exists for a reasonable period of time as determined by the particular facts in each case.

Honorable Bill Huffman

State Senate

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

Dear Senator Huffman:

You have requested my opinion concerning 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2); MCLA 380.1236(2); MSA 15.41236(2), which states:

'A teacher employed as a substitute teacher for 120 days or more during a school year shall be given first opportunity to accept or reject a contract for which the person is certified after all other teachers of the school district are reemployed in conformance with the terms of a master contract of an authorized bargaining unit and the employer.'

Your question is:

If an individual performed substitute teaching duties for a school district in excess of 119 days for school year 1977-1978, but was not employed by the district in any relevant capacity during school year 1978-79, would that individual be entitled to employment for school year 1979-80 if the district then has an available vacancy?

In construing a statute which is ambiguous, courts will consider the legislative history of the statute in question. Wayne County v Auditor General, 250 Mich 227, 235-236; 229 NW 911, 914 (1930). The provisions of 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2), supra, were originally added to 1955 PA 269, as Sec. 569d(2), by 1975 PA 306. Subsequently, 1955 PA 269 was repealed and the same language that had been in Sec. 569d. (2) thereof became 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2), supra.

1975 PA 306 was originally introduced as Senate Bill No. 899 and read, in pertinent part, as follows:

'(2) A TEACHER EMPLOYED AS A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER FOR 120 DAYS OR MORE DURING A SCHOOL YEAR WHO IS REEMPLOYED FOR OR ASSIGNED TO A SPECIFIC TEACHING POSITION FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR SHALL RECEIVE A CONTRACT AS A REGULAR TEACHER IF HE MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULAR TEACHERS.' [Emphasis supplied]

During the legislative process, Senate Bill No. 899 was amended to delete the underscored language and to read as it originally appeared in 1955 PA 269, Sec. 569d. (2), and as it subsequently appeared in 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2), supra. See House Journal, 1975, Vol 4, pp 3560-3561, 3634-3635, 3662-3663; Senate Journal, 1975, Vol 3, pp 2507-2508.

The deletion of the phrase 'for the succeeding year' from Senate Bill No. 899 manifests legislative intent that a teacher's rights under 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2), supra, extend beyond the succeeding school year. Thus, it is my opinion that a substitute teacher who performed teaching duties in excess of 119 days for the school year 1977-1978 is entitled to the first opportunity to accept or reject a contract to fill a position for which the teacher was certified in the 1979-1980 school year after all other teachers had been reemployed for that year in conformity with the collective bargaining agreement.

The question remains as to the period of time a teacher's unexercised right of first refusal carries forward under 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2), supra. Statutes must be given a reasonable construction. Crawford v School District No. 6, 342 Mich 564, 572; 70 NW2d 789, 793 (1955). In contract law the courts have ruled that, where the parties do not specify the period of time in which an act must be done, the act must be done within a reasonable period of time as determined by the court in light of the particular facts in each case. Dulany-Vernay Co v Kalamazoo Stationery Co, 213 Mich 484; 181 NW 984 (1921). Thus a substitute teacher's rights carry forward under 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1236(2), supra, for a reasonable period of time as determined by the particular facts in each case.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General