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 Stаte Tenure Commission has the authority to reduce a discipline sanction from discharge to a suspension despite finding that the misconduct charges were proven.”
Petitioner disсharged 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 *227 the numerous warnings and reprimands issued to respondent from 1965 to 1982, as well as the two events in 1983 which аpparently 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 whiсh the names of the parties were kept private. In general, respondent here has adopted an analysis similar tо 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, MCL 38.137; MSA 15.2037, undеr 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,
The question before the Tenure Commission in this case was the propriety of petitioner’s dismissal of respondent, a tenurеd teacher. Under the teacher tenure act, a tenured teacher may be discharged only for reasonable аnd just cause. MCL 38.101; MSA 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. MCL 38.121; MSA 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,
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 thе payment of all lost wages. MCL 38.103; MSA 15.2003;
Shiffer v Gibraltar Bd of Ed,
*229
Our holding does not challenge the Tenure Commission’s mandate оf 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 NJ Super 404;
In general, we defer to an agency’s construction of the statute it is charged with administering.
Davis v Harrison Bd of Ed,
We therefore find that the act does not authorize the State Tenure Commission to modify or reduce a sanction from discharge to suspension and therefore the Tenure Commission erred in its constructiоn of the act and in assuming this authority.
Notes
T enure Commission could not order the board to provide specialized training to a teacher as part of a reinstatement order. This Court quoted with approval the *229 dissenting opinion of Tenure Commission Member Gibson to the effect that the act provides only for reimbursement. Member Gibson noted: "Had the Legislature desired the retraining of tеachers by their employees, it would have clearly provided for that relief in the statute.” Wolff, supra, p 156. Member Gibson also dissented in this case in the order directing the briefing of this issue. We agree with her observation that the Tenure Commission is not permitted to fine tune the penalty imposed and has been provided by statute with authority to order one remedy—reinstatement with payment of lost wаges. As in Wolff, the act does not clearly provide for the relief proposed by the Tenure Commission.
We also note that in a footnote to its order requesting briefs on this issue in its decision and order in 82-69, the Tenure Commission cited two of its decisions in which it had modified a board’s decision, but without extensive discussion of the nature or scope of that power. One of those decisions was the one reversed in Wolff.