holding that licensure requirement of position, not job functions of employees, is determinative in resolving whether positions should be placed in teacher bargaining unit
How later courts described this case
- holding that licensure requirement of position, not job functions of employees, is determinative in resolving whether positions should be placed in teacher bargaining unit
- stating appellate court need not give deference to agency on issues of statutory authority or jurisdiction
- stating that administrative decisions construing the Public Employment Labor Relations Act are fully reviewable by appellate courts
- stating that statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the court of appeals. Its decision was logical and well reasoned. Federal Title I funds were not intended for the hiring of paraprofessionals to teach. To hire licensed teachers as paraprofessionals may give school districts more for their money in the event they are paid less than regular teachers, but it is an abuse of the system. If one is a licensed teacher and is actually teaching courses that the school district would normally assign to licensed teachers, that teacher ought to be a part of the teachers’ bargaining unit.