Lakeshore Bd. of Educ. v. Grindstaff
| Decision Date | 26 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 98748 |
| Citation | 441 N.W.2d 777,177 Mich.App. 225 |
| Parties | , 54 Ed. Law Rep. 640 LAKESHORE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John GRINDSTAFF, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Glime, Daoust, Wilds, Rusing & LeDuc by Gary W. Wilds, Mount Clemens, for petitioner-appellant.
Miller, Cohen, Martens & Ice, P.C. by Mark H. Cousens, Southfield, for respondent-appellee.
Before HOOD, P.J., and SAWYER and JACKSON, * JJ.
This case is on remand to this Court by order of the Supreme Court for the limited purpose of considering the following issue: "Whether the State Tenure Commission has the authority to reduce a discipline sanction from discharge to a suspension despite finding that the misconduct charges were proven." 431 Mich. 902, 432 N.W.2d 173 (1988). In our earlier unpublished per curiam opinion of March 11, 1988, we reversed the decision of the Tenure Commission. The Tenure Commission had agreed with the petitioner that respondent had been insubordinate, but found discharge to be too severe a penalty. It reduced respondent's penalty to suspension for the first semester of the 1983-84 school year without pay and ordered that respondent be reinstated and paid all salary lost commencing with the start of the second semester of the 1983-84 school year. Having found that the school board was justified in dismissing respondent, we reinstated the board's decision without reviewing the penalty imposed by the Tenure Commission or addressing the issue now before us.
Petitioner discharged respondent from his teaching position on the ground that he was insubordinate and persistently failed to abide by petitioner's administrative rules and directives. Respondent had been employed by petitioner for eighteen years. The record is replete with descriptions of the numerous warnings and reprimands issued to respondent from 1965 to 1982, as well as the two events in 1983 which apparently prompted petitioner to seek his dismissal.
The Tenure Commission cites as authority for its duty to review the penalty imposed and to order a reduction of the measure of punishment its October 5, 1984, decision in Docket No. 82-69, a case in which the names of the parties were kept private. In general, respondent here has adopted an analysis similar to that in 82-69. In 82-69, the Tenure Commission cited three bases for its claim of such authority: (1) the provision of the teacher tenure act, M.C.L. Sec. 38.137; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2037, under which the commission is vested with "such powers as are necessary" to carry out and enforce the act; (2) the language in Long v. Bd. of Ed., 350 Mich. 324, 86 N.W.2d 275 (1957), indicating that all questions of law and fact are subject to the Tenure Commission's de novo review; and (3) authority from other jurisdictions.
The question before the Tenure Commission in this case was the propriety of petitioner's dismissal of respondent, a tenured teacher. Under the teacher tenure act, a tenured teacher may be discharged only for reasonable and just cause. M.C.L. Sec. 38.101; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2001. A tenured teacher may appeal to the Tenure Commission any decision of the school board that comes within the provisions of the act. M.C.L. Sec. 38.121; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2021. The Tenure Commission reviews a dismissal to determine if the board's decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Rehberg v. Melvindale, Ecorse Twp. Bd. of Ed., 330 Mich. 541, 548, 48 N.W.2d 142 (1951). In its review, the Tenure Commission makes a de novo determination as to all questions of law and fact which are before it. See Ferrario v. Escanaba Bd. of Ed., 426 Mich. 353, 366-367, 388, 395 N.W.2d 195 (1986); Long v. Royal Oak Bd. of Ed., 350 Mich. 324, 326, 86 N.W.2d 275 (1957). While the Tenure Commission has been "vested with such powers as are necessary to carry out and enforce the provisions" of the act, M.C.L. Sec. 38.137; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2037, it may not impose a duty upon the school board or order equitable relief that is not expressly authorized by the act. Benton Harbor Bd. of Ed. v. Wolff, 139 Mich.App. 148, 156, 361 N.W.2d 750 (1984), lv. den. 422 Mich. 976 (1985); Farmer v. Holton Public Schools, 138 Mich.App. 99, 104, 359 N.W.2d 532 (1981). This is consistent with the generally accepted principle that an administrative reviewing panel has only that power and authority granted to it by statute. 2 AmJur2d, Administrative Law, Sec. 546, p 355. See also, Michigan Humane Society v. Natural Resources Comm., 158 Mich.App. 393, 399-400, 404 N.W.2d 757 (1987); Pharris v. Secretary of State, 117 Mich.App. 202, 204, 323 N.W.2d 652 (1982).
In modifying respondent's dismissal the Tenure Commission took it upon itself to decide how best to discipline the teacher. There is no provision in the act which expressly or impliedly grants this power to the Tenure Commission. Its role was limited to determining if the dismissal was arbitrary or unreasonable. The Tenure Commission's determination that a teacher has been wrongfully discharged includes the power to order reinstatement and the payment of all lost wages. M.C.L. Sec. 38.103; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2003; Shiffer v. Gibraltar Bd. of Ed., 393 Mich. 190, 224 N.W.2d 255 (1974). However, we find no indication in the act that the Tenure Commission has been granted equitable powers that would authorize it to fashion whatever remedy it sees fit. Wolff, supra. 1
Our holding does not challenge the Tenure Commission's mandate of de novo review under Long, but recognizes that the review is limited by the provisions of the act. Our Tenure Commission has not been granted by statute or constitution the same broad powers to fashion a remedy as has been granted in other states. In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J.Super. 404, 226 A.2d 30 (1967); Matter of Bott v. Deposit Central Bd. of Ed., 41 N.Y.2d 265, 392 N.Y.S.2d 274, 360 N.E.2d 952 (1977); Matter of Mockler v. Amback, 100 Misc.2d 717, 420 N.Y.S.2d 111 (1979), aff'd 79 A.D.2d 745, 434 N.Y.S.2d 809 (1980); Matter of Vetere v. Allen, 15 N.Y.2d 259, 258 N.Y.S.2d 77, 206 N.E.2d 174 (1965). Nor does it have specific statutory power, as does our Civil Service Commission, to both discipline employees and review the discipline imposed by others. M.C.L. Sec. 38.154; M.S.A. Sec. 5.3364; Konyha v. Mt. Clemens Civil Service Comm., 393 Mich. 422, 424-425, 224 N.W.2d 833 (1975).
In general, we defer to an agency's construction of the statute it is charged with administering. Davis v. Harrison Bd. of Ed., 126 Mich.App. 89, 97, 342 N.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakeshore Public Schools Bd. of Educ. v. Grindstaff
...Its role was limited to determining if the dismissal was arbitrary or unreasonable." Lakeshore Bd. of Ed. v. Grindstaff (On Second Remand ), 177 Mich.App. 225, 228, 441 N.W.2d 777 (1989). II There were four charges. The first concerned an incident on March 3, 1983, and the second an inciden......
-
Sobotka v. Chrysler Corp.
...judicial interpretation always takes precedence. Murphy v. Michigan, 418 Mich. 341, 343 N.W.2d 177 (1984); Lakeshore Bd. of Ed. v. Grindstaff, 177 Mich.App. 225, 441 N.W.2d 777 (1989).Nor are we persuaded by the contention, perhaps accurate, that to "apply Trask and Thayer to the facts of t......