O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 20-4-35 (2019)

Reduction in force policy

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The State Board of the Technical College System of Georgia shall develop and implement a policy which provides for an orderly and fair process to be used in the event any reduction in force becomes necessary. The reduction in force policy shall provide that:

(1) Presidents of state technical institutes shall devise a plan for a reduction in force for their respective institutions;

(2) Any reduction in force within an institution shall be limited to that institution;

(3) The institute president shall decide the competitive area and competitive group to which any reduction in force is applicable;

(4) All individuals within a competitive group will participate in the reduction in force process, regardless of whether they are in the classified or unclassified service, tenured or nontenured;

(5) The State Board of the Technical College System of Georgia shall prescribe the basis for determining retention credits which shall be uniform among all state technical institutes;

(6) Plans describing the process by which a reduction in force would be conducted within each state technical institute shall be approved by the State Board of the Technical College System of Georgia; and

(7) Any employee of a state technical institute who believes the approved plan for that institution was not followed shall have the right to appeal to the State Board of the Technical College System of Georgia, and the decision of the board shall be final.

History

(Code 1981, § 20-4-35, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 691, § 1; Ga. L. 2011, p. 632, § 3/HB 49.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1991, the

comma was deleted following ‘‘followed’’ in paragraph (7).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1996–1996 · leading case: Reynolds v. Flint River Technical Inst., 477 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reynolds v. Flint River Technical Inst., 477 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Defendants further contended that “the General Assembly mandated state wide budget cuts during 1991[, as a consequence of which, plaintiff] was properly included in the Reduction in Force pursuant to the policies and procedures promulgated by the *241 Department and O.C.G.A. §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.