Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Parental involvement law "School" North Carolina

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parental involvement law "School" North Carolina

    The question is in North Carolina you get 4hrs per child per year for parental involvement, I have an employee that his wife home schools both his sons and he asked for 2hrs of his time so he could attend a curriculum book fair that in our area only takes place one day a year. He needed this time to purchase and get all the curriculum his children needed for the year, can he be denied due to it being home schooled?

  • #2
    Why would you deny it, even if you could? It's 2 hours. It's "parental involvement". I recommend giving the time and not taking the risk.
    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #3
      North Carolina law requires that ALL parents and guardians of school aged children be entitled to up to four hours per year of leave for school activities. It doesn't say anything about excluding parents of home schooled children.

      He's the parent of a school aged child; it is a school based activity; it is within the time allotted by law. Deny at your own peril, in my opinion.
      The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

      Comment


      • #4
        By the way for the record I am a union rep and my question is due to the fact that I am defending this employee, I have no doubt that HR is going to deny him and the main reason is because he took the 2hrs in conjuntion with a holiday that we got paid for and by our contract you have to work your full scheduled shift before and after the holiday to be eligible for the holiday pay, BUT the exceptions are an approved leave such as vacation, personal leave and school time. If they deny him they dont have to pay him his holiday pay, I deal with this group in HR everyday and there is NO doubt in my mind they will deny him for the hell of it!

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't see anything in the law that says he has to be allowed PAID time.
          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

          Comment


          • #6
            Find out if your employee is a member of the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association.) They're a very prominent group, and it's unlikely he's unaware of who they are if his family is homeschooling. Members get free legal representation for homeschool issues, and their lawyers are rather *cough* militant. They would be thrilled to help him show your employer that it's in their best interests to treat parents of homeschooled children the same as parents of children in traditional school.

            Comment


            • #7
              I delved into this a little bit, because it was more fun than making dinner. I'm not sure how this would play out in court.

              Here is a link to the North Carolina statute that allows the paid time off:
              LINK.

              It says,
              "For the purpose of this section, "school" means any
              (i) public school,
              (ii) private church school, church of religious charter, or nonpublic school described in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 39 of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes that regularly provides a course of grade school instruction,
              (iii) preschool, and
              (iv) child care facility as defined in G.S. 110‑86(3)."
              (emphasis and pagebreaks mine)

              Homeschools are covered under Part 3 of § 115C Article 39; however § 115C‑564 requires them to elect to operate under the qualifications of Part 1 or 2, with some exceptions. (I can't find a way to link to the citation directly, but it's a few paragraphs above the bottom on this page.)

              But still, if he's an HSLDA member, he should contact them for their input.
              Last edited by CarynG; 09-03-2008, 04:39 PM. Reason: markup

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cbg View Post
                I don't see anything in the law that says he has to be allowed PAID time.

                Not paid time for the school time, the paid time comes in because we were off Monday for Labor Day and its a paid holiday for us. our contract says you have to work your FULL scheduled shift the day before the holiday and the day after to get the holiday pay! He left 2hrs early the day after the holiday and wanted to take his school time, if the company deems his case not to be school time this will make him ineligible for his holiday pay.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Gotcha, sorry. I was confused by the sequence.

                  I agree with you, though; I think he should be allowed the school time and I think the state would agree with us.
                  The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    § 95‑28.3. Leave for parent involvement in schools.

                    (a) It is the belief of the General Assembly that parent involvement is an essential component of school success and positive student outcomes. Therefore, employers shall grant four hours per year leave to any employee who is a parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis of a school‑aged child so that the employee may attend or otherwise be involved at that child's school. However, any leave under this section is subject to the following conditions:

                    (1) The leave shall be at a mutually agreed upon time between the employer and the employee.

                    (2) The employer may require an employee to provide the employer with a written request for the leave at least 48 hours before the time desired for the leave.

                    (3) The employer may require that the employee furnish written verification from the child's school that the employee attended or was otherwise involved at that school during the time of the leave.

                    For the purpose of this section, "school" means any (i) public school, (ii) private church school, church of religious charter, or nonpublic school described in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 39 of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes that regularly provides a course of grade school instruction, (iii) preschool, and (iv) child care facility as defined in G.S. 110‑86(3).

                    (b) Employers shall not discharge, demote, or otherwise take an adverse employment action against an employee who requests or takes leave under this section. Nothing in this section shall require an employer to pay an employee for leave taken under this section.

                    (c) An employee who is demoted or discharged or who has had an adverse employment action taken against him or her in violation of this section may bring a civil action within one year from the date of the alleged violation against the employer who violates this section and obtain either of the following:

                    (1) Any wages or benefits lost as a result of the violation; or

                    (2) An order of reinstatement without loss of position, seniority, wages, or benefits.

                    The burden of proof shall be upon the employee. (1993, c. 509, s. 1; 1997‑506, s. 34.)


                    Did the employee give advanced notice? Is it required per the CBA?

                    I'd advise the employee to provide proof of the need for leave up front rather than make the employer have to go back and forth to get it. If he had to be off that day, then a brochure showing the day of the fair and the receipt for the materials purchased should demonstrate that the employee was actually off for a school related reason.

                    Next time I'd tell this employee to fight the battle if there is to be one in advance rather than waiting until they actually took the time off the day after a holiday to figure it out. When it is a surprise after the fact, that tends to raise red flags for an employer. Plus, the chances that regular old mistakes can happen increase when the employer doesn't know to look out for an unusual case.
                    I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kendel72 View Post
                      Not paid time for the school time, the paid time comes in because we were off Monday for Labor Day and its a paid holiday for us. our contract says you have to work your FULL scheduled shift the day before the holiday and the day after to get the holiday pay! He left 2hrs early the day after the holiday and wanted to take his school time, if the company deems his case not to be school time this will make him ineligible for his holiday pay.
                      I dunno, looks to me like the employee has to give the employer 48 hours notice before taking the time off.

                      Furthermore it says in the statute that the employer has a say in when the employee can take the time.

                      Seems to me like a useless employee benefit. Not that that surprises me. It is the good ole' USA, you know.

                      Screw the employer, go to arbitration. That has got to lead to a more positive outcome than a statute that has more holes than swiss cheese.

                      Unless, of course, you can find some case law on the subject where a court has ruled in favor of the employee in a situation analogous to your guys.

                      Good luck,

                      Eric

                      Comment

                      The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                      Working...
                      X