losahits.blogg.se

The conflict is between Section 1124 of the Public School Code which empowers school boards to suspend professional employees because of a "substantial decrease in pupil enrollment in the school district," and Section 1166 which entitles any professional employee of the public school system who has completed ten years of satisfactory service "to a leave of absence for restoration of health, study or travel, or, at the discretion of the board of school directors, for other purposes."Ĭommonwealth Court, in affirming the trial court, held that, under Section 1166 of the School Code, a sabbatical is mandatory once an employee meets the requirements of Section 1166 thus, a school board has no discretion whether to grant the sabbatical leave. The issue in this case is one of first impression in this Commonwealth and involves a conflict between two provisions of the Public School Code. The effect of this order was to postpone their suspension from employment *411 which had been scheduled to begin at the end of the 1980-81 school year. The Court of Common Pleas had ordered the School District to grant eleven teachers sabbatical leave for the 1981-82 school year. 52, 478 A.2d 539 which affirmed the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. Assoc.īefore NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.īristol Township School District appeals from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, 84 Pa.Cmwlth. Martin Herring, Jenkintown, for appellees. *410 Edwin Popkin, Langhorne, for appellant.Ī. Helene KARAFIN, Richard Puchino, Karen Brody, Lynn Roccograndi, Sherrie Noch, Rochelle Gay, Janice Hines, Richard Cornwell, Linda Harten, Linwood Rohrbach, and Joann Schmidt, Appellees. BRISTOL TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,