86 Pa. Commw. 206 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Memorandum Opinion by
David H. Fry, Sr., a professional employe of the Garnet Valley School District, was, in April 1982, recommended for demotion to sixth grade classroom
Fry, who is certificated as an elementary and secondary school principal, testified to having greater seniority than at least one of the district’s secondary school principals. Fry argued that his demotion therefore constituted an improper realignment of professional staff under Section 1125.1(c) of the Code
In Shestack, a pupil population decline caused the closing of an elementary school and the transfer of its principal to an elementary school where Shestack was employed as principal. Shestack was replaced by the transferred principal and demoted to a fifth grade teaching position. Contending that “the action with respect to his position of employment constituted a ‘realignment,’ ” Shestack challenged his demotion as an improper realignment of professional staff under Section 1125.1(c). Id. at 205, 437 A.2d at 1060. The board of school directors sustained the demotion under Section 1151 as not arbitrary, capricious or based on improper motive, after rejecting the applicability of Section 1125.1(c) to demotions.
In reversing the common pleas court’s order quashing Shestack’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we held that Section 1125.1(c) mandates that professional staff realignment necessitated by declining student enrollment, which results in suspension or demotion, be structured “ ‘so as to insure that more senior employes are provided with the opportunity to fill positions for which they are certified and which are being filled by less senior employes.’ ” Id. at 208, 437 A.2d at 1061.
Guided by Shestack and the common usage of the verb “realign,” which means “to reorganize or make new grouping of,”
Fry also appealed from the secretary’s order dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Secretary’s action was proper given Fry’s express reliance on the. Local Agency Law, Section 1125.1(c) and Shestack in his petition of appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Secretary’s order.
Order, in 2802 C.D. 1982
And Now, this 31st day of July, 1984, the order of the Secretary of Education is affirmed.
Order in 3199 C.D. 1983
And Now, this 31st day of July, 1984, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County is reversed and the record is remanded for further pro
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §11-1151.
The seniority provision at 24 P.S. §11-1125.1 (c), added by Section 3 of the Act of November 20, 1979, P.L. 465, provides:
A school entity shall realign its professional staff so as to insure that more senior employes are provided with the opportunity to fill positions for which they are certificated and which are being filled by less senior employes.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 954 (1981).
Although cited by the common pleas court as precedent, Sharon City School District v. Hudson, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 278, 383 A.2d 249 (1978) is not controlling authority. Section 1125.-1(e), the operative, provision here, was adopted twenty months after the Sharon City decision, which was rendered under Section 1151. Consequently, ShestacJc, rather than Sharon Oity, controls.
2 Pa. C. S. §§551-555, 751-754.