James M. Haviland
Erwin L. Conrad
Crandall, Pyles, Haviland & Turner Conrad & Conrad
Charleston, West Virginia Fayetteville, West Virginia
Attorney for the Appellant Attorney for the Appellee
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE McGRAW dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
2. “'Under . . . W.Va. Code, 18A-4-5a . . ., once a county board of education
pays additional compensation to certain teachers, it must pay the same amount of additional
compensation to other teachers performing “like assignments and duties[.]”' Syllabus Point
1, in part, Weimer-Godwin v. Board of Education, 179 W.Va. 423, 369 S.E.2d 726 (1988).”
Syl. Pt. 1, Robbins v. McDowell County Board of Education, 186 W.Va. 141, 411 S.E.2d
466 (1991).
Per Curiam:
Karen Lockett appeals from the June 12, 2002, order of the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County affirming the administrative denial of the grievance she filed with the
West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board through which she sought
credit for her years of work experience outside the classroom for salary purposes. Ms.
Lockett is a certified teacher who teaches business education classes at Fayette Plateau
Vocational-Technical Center (“Fayette Vocational”). Based on the fact that certain
vocational instructors who teach pursuant to a permit are given credit for a portion of their
work experience for salary purposes, Ms. Lockett contends she similarly should receive the
benefit of her non-teaching related work experience pursuant to the uniformity of pay
provisions
(See footnote 1)
contained in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a (1990) (Repl. Vol. 2001). Upon
our review of the record in conjunction with the relevant statutes and case law, we find no
merit to this assignment of error and accordingly, we affirm.
Only four areas of vocational instruction _ Agriculture, Business Education,
Family and Consumer Science, and Marketing _ require a professional teaching certificate
that is received pursuant to a four-year college degree.
(See footnote 3)
Other areas of vocational education,
such as Electronics, Welding, and Carpentry, do not require a professional teaching
certificate. Because there are no baccalaureate programs offered in these areas, individuals
who are hired to instruct such vocational subjects must possess experience in the specified
area and take twenty-one credit hours of college instruction pertaining to teaching
methodology. Based on the combination of both work experience
(See footnote 4)
and the required amount
of pedagogy, an individual who wishes to teach in non-certified areas may receive a
vocational permit.
(See footnote 5)
Under the statutory scheme of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-2 (Supp. 2003),
the teacher pay scale is based upon two factors: years of teaching experience and the level
of formal education. To accommodate the fact that a vocational permitted instructor may
have neither teaching experience nor a college degree when he or she begins teaching, a
portion of the vocational permitted teacher's past work experience that specifically relates
to the subject he or she is hired to teach is treated as the equivalent of “teaching experience”
solely for purposes of determining salary. Rather than giving such instructors full credit for
such years of prior related work experience, however, the vocational permitted instructor
is required to “surrender” or give up a specified amount of such years for salary
determination purposes. During the time when Ms. Lockett filed the underlying grievance,
the number of “surrender” years a vocational permitted instructor hired at Fayette Vocational
was required to surrender for pay scale purposes was six.
(See footnote 6)
For example, a welder with
seventeen years of welding experience, who met all the other conditions of employment as
a vocational instructor and was hired by Fayette Vocational in 1998, had to give up, or
“surrender,” six years of his work experience for purposes of placement on the teacher pay
scale.
(See footnote 7)
See W.Va. Code § 18A-4-2.
Because the Board hired Ms. Lockett to teach Business Education at Fayette
Vocational based on her professional teaching certificate, her placement on the salary scale
was determined independent of any reference to years of working experience outside the
teaching field. Instead, it was made based on her specific level of education _ a master's
degree plus her years of experience in the teaching field.
(See footnote 8)
See W.Va. Code §18A-4-2.
Although Ms. Lockett received her position at Fayette Vocational based on
her teacher's certificate, she filed a grievance on May 11, 2001, through which she asserted
that the Board wrongly failed to give her credit for the seven and a half years that she was
employed as a secretary prior to embarking on her teaching career.
(See footnote 9)
Her grievance was
denied at Levels I and II. She waived her Level III hearing and proceeded to Level IV. See
generally W.Va. Code § 18-29-4 (1995) (Repl. Vol. 2003). Following the Level IV hearing,
which was held on October 23, 2001, a decision was issued by the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) on December 28, 2001. In that decision, the ALJ denied the grievance and further
determined that Ms. Lockett was “not similarly situated to non-certified vocational teachers”
and further rejected her contention that permitted vocational teachers “receive a pay
supplement [that] she does not.” The circuit court similarly denied her grievance, holding
that there was no violation of the uniformity in pay requirements set forth in West Virginia
Code § 18A-4-5a. Through this appeal, Ms. Lockett seeks a reversal of the lower court's
ruling that the Board committed no violation of the uniformity in pay requirements which
govern county issued salary supplements. See id.
195 W.Va. at 304, 465 S.E.2d at 406. Accordingly, we proceed to determine whether the circuit court committed error in affirming the ALJ's decision to deny Appellant's grievance.
Even if an assignment as a vocational instructor qualifies as a “special
instructional assignment,”
(See footnote 14)
there is absolutely no basis for Ms. Lockett's assertion that the
years of experience credit that is utilized in placing a vocational permitted instructor on the
salary schedule set forth in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-2 is a salary supplement. This
Court explained in Robbins v. McDowell County Board of Education, 186 W.Va. 141, 411
S.E.2d 466 (1991), that “the salary supplement is a specific amount for the special work
undertaken without reference to classification of training or experience.” Id. at 145, 411
S.E.2d at 470 (emphasis supplied). At issue in Robbins was the application of the
uniformity of pay provisions of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a with regard to vocational
instructors who were “grandfathered” in when the McDowell County Board of Education
decided to stop paying a salary supplement to vocational educational teachers hired after
1984, but allowed “[t]eachers who had previously received the three-year experience
increment . . . to keep it.” 186 W.Va. at 143, 411 S.E.2d at 468. The factual underpinnings
of Robbins began with the board of education's recognition in 1974 of a
need to attract skilled workers, such as welders, from private
industry to teach at McDowell County's vocational education
school . . ., the Board established a policy of paying qualified
teachers at the Vo-Tech Center as if they had three additional
years of teaching experience. As a result, teachers at the Vo-
Tech Center were advanced three steps, or experience
increments, up the pay scale ahead of equally educated and
experienced teachers in other schools in the county.
Ibid. Citing the uniformity provision of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a expressly
applicable to salary supplements, we held in Robbins that once the board of education
decided to stop paying across-the-board salary supplements to newly hired vocational
instructors, they similarly had to cease paying the “grandfathered” teachers this three-step
pay supplement. 186 W.Va. at 146-47, 411 S.E.2d at 471-72.
Unlike the case before us, the salaries of the vocational teachers at issue in Robbins were being increased or supplemented “without reference to classification of training or experience,” solely for the purpose of attracting qualified individuals to teach. Id. at 145, 411 S.E.2d at 470. In this case, as both the ALJ and the circuit court found, no salary supplement is being paid to the instructors at Fayette Vocational. What Ms. Lockett characterizes as a salary supplement is nothing more than the method by which non-certified vocational instructors are placed on the salary schedule that is used for determining their pay. See W.Va. Code § 18A-4-2. Critically, the Board's placement of vocational permitted instructors on the salary schedule by reference to their applicable years of non-teaching experience (because they have no teaching experience when they are hired), does not translate into the Board's granting of a salary supplement to these teachers. Rather, the utilization of such work experience in relation to vocational permitted instructors, whose non-teaching experience is an integral component of their qualification to teach, reflects recognition of the correlative value of such experience to classroom instruction. (See footnote 15)
In making her assertion that the Board has violated the uniformity in pay provision pertaining to salary supplements among “persons performing like assignments and duties,” Ms. Lockett overlooks certain fundamental distinctions that pertain to the setting of salaries for individuals, such as herself, who obtained their vocational instructional assignment based on their professional teacher's certificate and those other individuals who had to meet the requirements established for issuance of a vocational permit to qualify for their position. W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5a; see generally W.Va. R. Board of Education 126 § 136-119. Ms. Lockett suggests that the Legislature intended that all vocational instructors, whether they teach pursuant to a professional teacher's certificate or a vocational permit, must be treated in similar fashion for purposes of pay because they all teach in the vocational area. This assertion suggests a misapprehension of how the uniformity in pay provisions separately apply to salary supplements and to placement on the salary schedule in general. Cf. W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5a to 18A-4-2.
Contrary to the arguments raised by Ms. Lockett, the intention of the Legislature to treat non-certified vocational instructors in a manner different than certified vocational instructors is clear from the enactment of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-4. Pursuant to that provision, non-certified vocational instructors receive favorable placement on the teacher salary schedule set forth in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-2 in connection with a minimal amount of college credit. For the most part, the teacher salary schedule is expressly linked to the procurement of baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral degrees. In obvious recognition of the fact that a vocational instructor may not have a college degree when he or she begins their respective vocational assignment, the Legislature created a mechanism through West Virginia Code § 18A-4-4 whereby a qualifying vocational permitted instructor (See footnote 16) is treated for salary purposes as if he or she has attained a master's degree upon the accumulation of at least 15 additional semester hours of accredited college hours following the issuance of a vocational permit. See W.Va. Code § 18A-4-4. In so doing, the Legislature placed an inherent value on the work experience that such vocational instructors accumulate prior to their teaching assignments and further recognized that certain types of experience necessary for specialized teaching assignments, such as vocational education, cannot be gained through the classroom alone. In short, the enactment of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-4 attests to the permissibility of treating vocational permitted instructors in a manner different from vocational teachers who instruct pursuant to a professional certificate.
We made clear in syllabus point one of Robbins that
“[u]nder . . . W.Va. Code, 18A-4-5a . . ., once a county
board of education pays additional compensation to certain
teachers, it must pay the same amount of additional
compensation to other teachers performing 'like assignments
and duties[.]'” Syllabus Point 1, in part, Weimer-Godwin v.
Board of Education, 179 W.Va. 423, 369 S.E.2d 726 (1988).
Contrary to the assertions of Ms. Lockett, the Robbins holding does not come into play in
this case. Her argument that vocational permitted teachers are receiving additional pay
based on their non-teaching work experience is simply untenable. Rather than receiving an
additional amount of pay that is correlated to their work experience, such experience, minus
the applicable “surrender” years, is used to determine where these employees fit into the
unitary pay schedule set forth in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-2.
In ruling on this issue, the circuit court recognized that Ms. Lockett unsuccessfully attempts to compare apples and oranges. That is, her arguments ignore the fact that there are two categories of vocational teachers _ those who must have a professional teaching certificate and those who teach subjects for which no such professional certificate would be available because the subject matter is skills-related or trades-related. In other words, a prospective teacher could not have obtained a college degree in subjects such as welding or masonry. Hence, the use of the vocational permit. The Board, of necessity, had to develop a mechanism for ascertaining where teachers with such permits would fall on the salary scale. To this end, the Board used the permitted teacher's years of experience minus a certain number of years. By contrast, professional certificated teachers, such as Lockett, are placed on the salary scale in accordance with their years of teaching experience and their educational status.
This process does not violate the uniform pay requirements of West Virginia Code section 18A-4-5a. To the contrary, it comports with the permissive provisions that allow a county to exceed the state-mandated minimum pay scale but only if the county's pay scale is uniform taking into account “the classification of training, experience . . . and other requirements.” In this case, there are differences in the classification of training between Lockett and her colleagues who work under a vocational permit.
The Grievance Board correctly noted these distinctions
and correctly concluded that [Ms.] Lockett had failed to prove
that vocational permit teachers receive an additional salary
supplement based on years of experience in the skill or trade
they teach. Rather, the years of experience (minus a given
number) determines placement on the pay scale. It is not a
supplement thereto. (emphasis supplied)
In concluding that Ms. Lockett's position was “untenable,” the circuit court
observed that “no other vocational teacher has ever received such double credit.” The record
supports this finding. Ms. Lockett suggested during oral argument that one individual who
is a masonry instructor at Fayette Vocational _ Mr. Frank Aylor _ presented the unique
situation where the Board had given a vocational certified instructor credit for prior work
experience. This assertion is not accurate. Mr. Aylor, who had a professional teacher's
certificate in the area of physical education, applied for a teaching assignment in masonry.
Because masonry is one of those vocational areas for which there is no college degree, Mr.
Aylor could only obtain the instructional position by means of a vocational permit which is
based, in part, on years of working experience.
(See footnote 17)
At the time Mr. Aylor applied for the
masonry position, he apparently already had twenty years of actual teaching experience. Mr.
Aylor would have lost credit for pay scale purposes for that twenty years of teaching
experience when he accepted the vocational masonry position were it not for the fact that
the Legislature foresaw such a situation and specifically chose not to discourage certified
teachers from taking vocational permitted positions. Based on the last sentence of West
Virginia Code § 18A-4-4, which expressly prohibits a board of education from reducing the
salary of a teacher holding a valid professional certificate who is reassigned out of the
teacher's field,
(See footnote 18)
Mr. Aylor did not lose the years of teaching experience he had accumulated
before deciding to accept the masonry position. Pursuant to this legislative directive, a
vocational certified instructor is credited for the number of teaching “experience” years
solely to prevent his or her salary from being reduced from what it was when he or she
taught pursuant to a teacher's certificate. Thus, the Board's use of Mr. Aylor's accumulated
years of experience as a teacher for purposes of permitting him to stay at the same salary
level which he was receiving prior to accepting the vocational assignment does not support
Ms. Lockett's position that vocational certified instructors are receiving credit for non-
teaching related experience.
Simply put, uniformity of pay within the meaning of the provision of West
Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a that pertains to salary supplements does not require uniformity
of pay with regard to the setting of vocational teacher's salaries in general. Separate
uniformity of pay provisions are set forth in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a that require
county pay schedules to be uniform “as to the classification of training, experience,
responsibility and other requirements.” W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5a. If anything, this case aptly
demonstrates the uniformity that is required by this statutory provision as vocational certified
instructors do not receive an experience credit for non-teaching work experience and
permitted instructors do, for the reasons discussed above. Because there is no salary
supplement at issue in this case, there is consequently no violation of the uniformity in pay
provisions that pertain to such salary supplements. See id.
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is hereby affirmed.
Counties may fix higher salaries
for teachers placed in special instructional assignments, for those assigned
to or employed for duties other than regular instructional duties, and for teachers
of one-teacher schools, . . . .Uniformity also shall apply to such additional
salary increments or compensation for all persons performing like assignments
and duties within the county.
W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5a (emphasis supplied).
_ Six years of job related experience is required for State certification. No pay increment will be allowed for this required experience.
_ Job related experience beyond the required 6 years for certification earned prior to employment by the Board up to and including 13 years of experience will be accepted and applied to the county teachers' salary schedule in effect.