December 2, 1993
Mr. James O. Barber Assistant State Superintendent
N. C. Department of Public Instruction 301 N. Wilmington Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Re: Advisory Opinion Interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.3; 1993 N.C. Session Laws Ch. 509
Dear Mr. Barber:
On October 28, 1993 you wrote to request our opinion regarding the interpretation and application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.3 (1993 N.C. Session Laws Ch. 509). This statute provides, in pertinent part, that "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." you have asked: (1) Does the statute apply to employees of public schools; (2) Is the specification of four hours leave maximum allowable under the law; and (3) Is the year referenced in the statute a fiscal or calendar year?
First, it is our opinion that the General Assembly intended this statute to apply to employees of public schools and other state and local agencies. Other provisions of Chapter 95, Art. 3, including G.S. §§ 95-28.1 and 28.2 are expressly applicable to state and local governmental agencies. Absent any indications to the contrary, it is our opinion that the General Assembly also intended G.S. § 95-28.3 to apply to state and local employers.
Second, it is our opinion that the General Assembly intended to require all employers to grant their employees at least four hours of leave per year to participate in activities at a child’s school. The statute does not prohibit employers from granting their employees more than four hours leave per year to participate in a child’s education. Consistent with 16 N.C.A.C. 6C.0405 and any rules adopted by the local board of education, a superintendent may grant a public school employee a leave of absence without pay in his discretion. Therefore, if a local board of education should desire to grant more than four hours of leave per year to its employees to permit them to participate in their child’s education, there appear to be no legal obstacles to the adoption of such a policy.
Finally, G.S. § 95-28.3 does not limit the year during which the employer must allow the four hours of leave to any the particular 12-month period. Absent such a restriction, it is our opinion that an employer is free to allow its employees four hours of leave during either a calendar year or a fiscal year or, indeed, any consecutive 12-month period. To provide for a consistent and uniform leave policy, the State Board may wish to adopt a policy or regulation which establishes the beginning and ending of the year for purposes of G.S. § 95-28.3. If the State Board establishes a twelve-month period which does not begin with the effective date of the statute, i.e. December 1, 1993, then employees would be entitled to a prorated share of the fours hours of
leave required under the statute from December 1, 1993, until the end of the year designated in
the policy.
If you have any further questions regarding the interpretation or application of this statute, please
write again.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Thomas J. Ziko
Special Deputy Attorney General