Shoreline Community College Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dept.

Citation842 P.2d 938,120 Wn.2d 394
Decision Date24 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 57625-4,57625-4
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Parties, 79 Ed. Law Rep. 647 SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 7, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT of the State of Washington and Richard A. Pelto, Respondents.

Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Montecucco, Sr. Asst., Olympia, Edwin J. McCullough, Jr., Asst., Brenda J. Little, Asst., Seattle, for petitioner.

Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., M. Geoffrey G. Jones, Asst., Everett, for respondents.

JOHNSON, Justice.

Shoreline Community College District 7 (Shoreline) seeks review of the Court of Appeals opinion affirming the administrative determination that Richard Pelto qualified for unemployment compensation. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

Shoreline employed Richard Pelto as a part-time, salaried English instructor in 1986. Pelto taught an English 102 class during the winter and spring 1986 academic quarters. In the fall 1986 quarter, he taught both English 101 and English 102. Pelto thus taught a total of four introductory college English classes at Shoreline in 1986. During this time, neither Shoreline nor Pelto kept records of the number of hours Pelto worked in fulfilling his teaching duties to Shoreline. Pelto did not have any other employment in 1986.

Pelto's employment contract with Shoreline expired at the end of each academic quarter. Shoreline renewed Pelto's contract at the end of the winter and spring quarters, but not at the end of the fall quarter. Pelto was thus not rehired in 1987. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits in April 1987.

An individual must work at least 680 hours during his or her "base year" in order to qualify for unemployment benefits. RCW 50.04.030. For the purposes of this case, Pelto's "base year" is the 1986 calendar year. Employers are required to make quarterly reports to the Employment Security Department (Department) regarding the number of hours worked by each of their employees. RCW 50.12.070; WAC 192-16-002. Shoreline reported to the Department that Pelto had worked 513 hours during 1986, or 167 hours less than the minimum number required for Pelto to qualify for unemployment compensation. As a result, the Department initially denied Pelto's application for benefits.

Pelto appealed this denial of benefits. On June 15, 1987, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on whether Shoreline had correctly reported Pelto's hours to the Department. Pelto testified at this hearing that he worked regular hours while he was teaching, and that during the winter and spring quarters, he had worked a minimum of 4 hours per day for a total of 440 hours. He stated that he had worked a minimum of 6 hours per day for a total of 330 hours during the fall quarter when he taught both English 101 and English 102. Pelto thus testified that he had worked a total of at least 770 hours for Shoreline in 1986, and during this time he received a total salary of $6,807.90.

Pelto testified at the hearing that he would arrive on campus at least 1 hour before class to review teaching materials and prepare for class. Each class he taught carried 5 credit hours, and met 1 hour per day, 5 times per week during the academic quarter. He testified that he maintained regular office hours to give students additional help with their course work, as well as feedback on their progress. As proof of these hours, Pelto placed into the record copies of evaluations made by his students regarding Pelto's teaching performance. These evaluations indicate that Pelto's students generally had a high level of satisfaction with Pelto's teaching performance, and in particular with Pelto's availability when they needed additional help with their assignments outside of the classroom.

As additional proof of his hours, Pelto placed in the record copies of syllabi for his English 101 and English 102 classes. These documents reflect that English 101 and English 102 are introductory English courses designed to develop and improve the basic writing skills of students. In order to achieve this purpose, students in these classes were given a number of writing assignments of varying complexity, including assignments to rewrite or revise their work. Pelto corrected and graded these assignments. Pelto also gave his students reading assignments for the purposes of classroom discussion, various written exercises from assigned texts, and a midterm and final exam.

In addition to the 770 hours he worked in teaching his students, Pelto testified that he also spent approximately 30 hours teaching himself to use a WordPerfect software program, as this program was to be used in teaching English during the winter 1987 academic quarter. He also spent about 10 hours attending faculty meetings at which his attendance was strongly recommended but not required, and about 30 hours preparing a presentation to the state humanities association with two other Shoreline instructors.

Shoreline's personnel director, Diann Youngquist, represented Shoreline at the hearing. Youngquist did not challenge any of Pelto's testimony or supporting documentation regarding the number of hours he had worked in fulfilling his contractual teaching duties to Shoreline. She argued instead that Shoreline had properly reported Pelto's hours based on a formula contained in a collective bargaining agreement between the college and the Shoreline Community College Federation of Teachers. The collective bargaining agreement has not been placed in the record. However, Youngquist established through her testimony that she had personally negotiated the formula with the union several years prior to the time of the hearing.

Youngquist testified that the formula for determining a part-time, salaried instructor's reportable hours is as follows: 35 (hours per week) X 11 (weeks in a quarter) X (percentage of a full-time instructor's credit hours taught) = number of hours reported to the Department. For the purposes of the formula, a full-time instructor was estimated as working 35 hours per week for 11 weeks during the academic quarter. The record reflects that this 35 hours per week figure does not represent any actual weekly expectation for full-time faculty members. The figure was chosen in recognition of the fact that part-time faculty are not expected to participate in "governance and other divisional duties" expected of full-time faculty members. A full-time teaching load in the English Department is considered to be 15 credit hours. Each 5 credit hour class Pelto taught was thus considered to be one-third or 33 percent of a full-time load. Shoreline applied this formula to Pelto, determined that Pelto worked 513 reportable hours, and accordingly reported this figure to the Department.

The number of hours derived through this formula does not reflect the actual number of hours any part-time, salaried instructor may work in fulfilling his or her contractual teaching duties. Youngquist testified at the hearing that:

there may well be times when the actual hours that a person spends, because of the nature either of their assignment or the nature of the individual, is going to mean that that person put in more hours, or perhaps less hours [than are reported to the Department by means of the formula].

Some teaching assignments will thus require more hours to complete than others. Application of the formula in any given case may accordingly result in either underreporting or overreporting to the Department the number of hours an instructor actually worked in completing his or her teaching assignment.

The record also indicates that the formula was not established to delineate or limit the number of hours a part-time, salaried instructor is required or expected to work in fulfillment of his or her contractual teaching duties. Youngquist testified that Shoreline does not place expectations on the number of hours a part-time instructor will spend in performing such activities as preparing for class, correcting assignments, and grading exams. The formula thus places limitations on the number of hours which are reported to the Department, but no limitation on the number of hours an instructor is actually required or expected to work in completing his or her particular teaching assignment.

The ALJ affirmed the denial of benefits. The ALJ concluded that the formula was an appropriate method for reporting Pelto's hours regardless of the number of hours Pelto may have actually worked in fulfillment of his contractual teaching duties.

Pelto petitioned the Commissioner of the Employment Security Department for review of the ALJ's ruling. The Commissioner reviewed the record and reversed the ALJ's ruling. The Commissioner determined that Pelto qualified for benefits because the record supported Pelto's contention that he had worked at least 770 hours in fulfilling his contractual teaching duties to Shoreline. The Commissioner noted in his decision that Shoreline had conceded that the number of hours an individual faculty member may spend fulfilling his or her contractual duties will vary with the type of courses he or she is required by contract to teach.

Shoreline petitioned the Superior Court for Thurston County for review of the Commissioner's ruling. The Superior Court reviewed the record and affirmed the Commissioner's ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court. This court granted Shoreline's petition for review of the Court of Appeals determination.

I

We begin by determining the appropriate standard of review. The Employment Security Act (Act) allows for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision "only in accordance with the procedural requirements of RCW 34.04.130." Former RCW 50.32.120; Macey v. Department of Empl. Sec., 110 Wash.2d 308, 312, 752 P.2d 372 (1988). The Legislature amended RCW 34.04.130, and the statute is now recodified at RCW 34.05.570. Laws of 1988, ch. 288, §§...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • In re Personal Restraint of Dyer
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 7, 2008
    ... ... Decided August 7, 2008 ... [189 P.3d 762] ... that Dyer "could be considered for community supervision with less concern for the community ... (1948)), overruled on other grounds by Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dep't, ... ...
  • Lee v. Evergreen Hosp. Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 2019
    ... ... The terms of her employment were governed by a CBA between Evergreen and ... 7 On July 26, Evergreen deposed class member Sherri ... court distinguished that case from Shoreline Community College District No. 7 v. Employment ... Dist. No. 401 v. Public Sch. Emp. of Peninsula , 130 ... 391. 28 E.g. , Cole v. Burns Intl Sec. Servs. , 105 F.3d 1465, 1473-79 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ... State Dept of Soc. & Health Servs. , 198 Wash. App. 745, 396 ... ...
  • Silverstreak v. State Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 29, 2007
    ... ...         ¶ 7 The administrative law judge held that the ... Tapper v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 122 Wash.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 ... in contemplation of existing law." Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dep't, ... ...
  • Wash. Trucking Associations, Nonprofit Corp. v. State
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 27, 2017
    ... ... The STATE of Washington, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT; Paul Trause, individually ... , husband and wife and the marital community composed thereof; Bill Ward, individually and in ... Trucking Ass'n v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 192 Wash.App. 621, 641, 369 P.3d 170 ... See Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 120 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT