(a) Every municipality and regional school district shall establish and put into full
effect by appropriate action of its school committee in a municipality or regional
school district where the school committee is elected, or by appropriate action of
the chief executive officer, in a municipality where the school committee is appointed,
a salary schedule recognizing years of service, experience, and training for all certified
personnel regularly employed in the public schools and having no more than twelve
(12) annual steps. The term “school year” as applied to the salary schedule means
the ten (10) calendar months beginning in September and ending the following June.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a freeze or reduction of the monetary value
of the steps in the salary schedule through the collective bargaining process.
Notes of Decisions
Berthiaume v. Sch. Com. of City of Woonsocket, 397 A.2d 889 (R.I. 1979).
· cites it 22× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §16-7-29, they are nevertheless entitled to compensation according to the prevailing salary schedule as outlined in that contract.”
Howard Union of Teachers v. State, 478 A.2d 563 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 16× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 16-7-29. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is the sole bargaining agent for teachers who are certified by the Rhode Island Department of Education to teach in state institutions and public schools in Rhode Island.”
D'Ambra v. North Providence Sch. Comm., 601 A.2d 1370 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 10× “II The petitioner argues that the commissioner erred in concluding that respondent was a regularly employed teacher for purposes of receiving a salary credit for the 1979 to 1983 school years. Specifically petitioner contends that since respondent accepted an hourly wage rather…”
Sch. Comm. v. Westerly Teachers Ass'n, 299 A.2d 441 (R.I. 1973).
· cites it 4× “Sections 16-7-29 and 35. It is a matter of common knowledge that the salaries currently being paid to "certified school personnel" are far in excess of the statutory minimums mandated in 1960 by the passage of § 16-7-29.”
Chester v. aRUSSO, 667 A.2d 519 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 3× “1956 § 16-7-29. In DAmbra, the defendants argued that the plaintiff, whose acceptance of a per diem rate of pay, waived her right to compensation afforded to full-time teachers under § 16-7-29.”
Sch. Comm. of Providence v. Bd. of Regents for Educ., 429 A.2d 1297 (R.I. 1981).
· cites it 2× “There we held that a per diem substitute who taught three-quarters of the year would attain “regularly employed” status and thereby come within the mantle of § 16-7-29. The clear implication of Berthi-aume is that once the per diem substitute serves the required number of days,…”
McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211 (R.I. 1987).
“6-4 creates a private right for a public good. He argues that the donee of such a private right lacks the power to waive that right or to nullify or vary it by private contract.”
Preziosi v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 529 A.2d 133 (R.I. 1987).
“The classifications of LTS, LTS in pool, and per diem substitute are included under the general heading of substitute teacher as distinct from the heading of full-time teacher. The distinct classifications may entitle the particular substitute to more pay and a benefit package…”
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.