Owens v. School Dist. No. 8R of Umatilla County

• Citation: 3 Or.App. 294,473 P.2d 678
• Parties: Arnold S. OWENS, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8R OF UMATILLA COUNTY, as public body corporate, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 20 October 1970
• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon

Page 678

473 P.2d 678

3 Or.App. 294

Arnold S. OWENS, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8R OF UMATILLA COUNTY, as public body corporate, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Oregon, Department 2.

Argued and Submitted June 15, 1970.

Decided Aug. 13, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1970.

Review Denied Oct. 20, 1970.

Gene B. Conklin, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Alex M. Byler, Pendleton, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Corey, Byler & Rew, Pendleton, and Brewer & Smallmon, Hermiston.

Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FOLEY, JJ.

FOLEY, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that he has a valid teaching contract with defendant school district pursuant to contract renewal rules and regulations adopted by defendant district which were incorporated in his teaching contract. Defendant district claims the adopted rules contravene statutes governing school districts and are invalid. The issues were raised by defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint on the ground it did not set forth facts sufficient to state a cause for declaratory relief. The trial court sustained defendant district's demurrer and plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing his amended complaint.

We base our statement of facts on the allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff is a teacher who is ready, willing and able to teach. Defendant is a nontenure school district. In 1964 defendant district negotiated with the Hermiston Association of Teachers, on behalf of plaintiff and other teachers within defendant's district, certain rules and regulations which were agreeed upon between defendant and the Hermiston Association of Teachers and adopted by defendant.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a Teacher's Three Year Contract dated February 24, 1966, under which plaintiff was employed by defendant district for the 1966--67, 1967--68 and 1968--69 school years. The aforementioned rules and regulations were incorporated as a part of this contract. That portion thereof relating to grievances and dismissals is as follows:

'DISMISSALS

'Any certificated employee whose work is unsatisfactory shall be so informed and the reasons clearly stated in writing. A personal teacher-administrator conference shall be held to discuss the problem and to suggest means for remediation. Ample opportunity is to be provided for rectification of the deficiencies. If the problem persists, the administrator may recommend a 1-year probationary contract at the conclusion of the present contract. If the employee's work continues to be unsatisfactory during this probationary year, and dismissal is necessary, he shall be informed in writing prior to March 15. Such written notification shall also include the reasons for dismissal.

'An employee who has been notified of a recommendation for dismissal may be granted a hearing before the school board if he makes such a request within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. Such request should be channeled through the superintendent's office.

'The board, upon receipt of such request, shall call a hearing to be held within 10 days following the receipt of the request and shall, at least three days prior to the day fixed for the hearing, notify the employee in writing of the date, time and place of the hearing.

'The employee may engage such counsel and produce such witnesses as he may desire.

'The board, within 5 days following the conclusion of such hearing, shall notify the employee for the next ensuing term.

'Any decision not to renew the contract shall be based solely upon the cause or causes for non-renewal specified in the notice to employee and proved and established at the hearing. If such notification and opportunity for hearing is not timely given by the board, the employee entitled thereto should be conclusively presumed to have been reemployed by the district for the next term upon contractual terms identical with those which would have prevailed if his employment had actually been renewed by the board of education for such ensuing term.'

'GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

'Any employee of the school district who feels that he has been aggrieved in any way shall follow channels in seeking redress. The complaint should be brought to the attention of the building principal first. If no satisfaction is forthcoming, the grievance can be brought to the superintendent of schools next. A still further appeal can be made to the Board of Education if no satisfaction can be had from the first two persons in the chain of command. Next step is to the local O.E.A. Ethics Committee.'

Prior to March 15, 1969, defendant district informed plaintiff in writing that his Teacher's Three Year Contract would not be renewed for another three year term, or at all. In giving this notice of nonrenewal, defendant did not comply with the dismissal provisions set out above.

It is plaintiff's contention that defendant must comply with these rules and regulations in order to effectuate a termination. Because defendant failed to comply, plaintiff claims he has a valid contract for three years beginning August 29, 1969, with a salary for 1969--70 equal to his 1968--69 salary. Defendant contends that it need only follow ORS 342.508(2) and ORS 342.513 in order to effectively terminate the contract. These two sections read:

ORS 342.508(2):

'Each district school board of a district subject to this section shall give written notice, by March 15 of the year the contract with the teacher or administrator described in subsection (1) of this section terminates, to the teacher or administrator of the renewal or nonrenewal of his contract. If the contract is not renewed, the notice of such nonrenewal and the reasons therefor shall be given in the manner prescribed by ORS 342.513. If the school board fails to give notice by March 15, the contract shall be considered renewed for the following school year at a salary not less than the annual salary being received at the time of renewal. The teacher or administrator may bring an action of mandamus to compel the school board to issue such a one-year contract for the following year.'

ORS 342.513:

'(1) Each district school board shall give written notice by March 15 of each year to all teachers and administrators in its employ who are not under tenure or who are not eligible for a three-year contract under ORS 342.508 the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract for the following school year. In case the district school board does not renew the contract, the material reason therefor shall, at the request of the teacher or administrator, he spread upon the records of the school district and the board shall furnish a statement of the reason for nonrenewal to the teacher or administrator. If any district school board fails to give such notice by March 15, the contract shall be considered renewed for the following school year at a salary not less than...