75-4334.
Same; proceedings for determination in accordance with Kansas administrative procedure act; judicial review; action in district court in proceeding involving alleged strike or lockout.
(a) Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the board. Proceedings against the party alleged to have committed a prohibited practice shall be commenced within six months of the date of such alleged practice by service upon the accused party by the board of a written notice, together with a copy of the charges. The accused party shall have seven days within which to serve a written answer to such charges, unless the board determines an emergency exists and requires the accused party to serve a written answer to such charges within 24 hours of their receipt. Hearings on prohibited practices shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act. If the board determines an emergency exists, the board may use emergency adjudicative proceedings as provided in K.S.A. 77-536, and amendments thereto. A strike or lockout shall be construed to be an emergency. The board may use its rulemaking power, as provided in K.S.A. 75-4323, and amendments thereto, to make any other procedural rules it deems necessary to carry on this function.
(b) The board shall either dismiss the complaint or determine that a prohibited practice has been or is being committed. If the board finds that the party accused has committed or is committing a prohibited practice, the board shall make findings as authorized by this act and shall file them in the proceedings.
(c) Any action of the board pursuant to subsection (b) is subject to review and enforcement in accordance with the Kansas judicial review act. The procedures for obtaining injunction and allied remedies shall be as set forth in the code of civil procedure, except that the provisions of K.S.A. 60-904, and amendments thereto, shall not control injunction actions arising out of public employer-employee relations under this act.
(d) If there is an alleged violation of either subsection (b)(8) or (c)(5) of K.S.A. 75-4333, and amendments thereto, the aggrieved party is authorized to seek relief in district court in the manner provided for the board in subsection (c) while proceedings on such prohibited practices are pending before the board. Any ruling of the district court shall remain in effect until set aside by the court on motion of the parties or of the board or upon review of the board's order as provided by subsection (c).
History:
L. 1971, ch. 264, § 14; L. 1973, ch. 363, § 6; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 139; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 305; L. 2010, ch. 17, § 202; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Behrmann v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 591 P.2d 173 (Kan. 1979).
· cites it 8× “K.S.A. 75-4334 governs the procedure for an action before the Board under the Public Employer-Employee Relations Act (K.”
Kansas Bd. of Regents v. Pittsburg State Univ. Chapter, 667 P.2d 306 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The items which PERB held to be mandatorily negotiable are: salary generation and salary allocation; out-of-state travel; promotions; summer employment; tenure; retrenchment; and access to personnel files. The district court affirmed PERB in all respects; the Regents and the…”
State, Dep't of Admin. v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 894 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1995).
· cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 75-4334(b). In this case, having determined that the KDA could not insist on the savings clause, and in view of the fact that an agreement had been reached at KSU and an agreement was all but reached at PSU — pending resolution of the savings clause dispute — PERB…”
Coggins v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 581 P.2d 817 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The law faculty thereafter sought review in the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4334(b). The court rejected the law faculty’s procedural claims, holding that the board could properly function through three of its five members; the parties need not be served with copies of…”
Fort Hays State Univ. v. Fort Hays State Univ. Chapter, 195 P.3d 259 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “In fact, PERB’s jurisdiction is limited by K.S.A. 75-4334 to controversies concerning prohibited practices, and wrongful termination of an employment contract is not among the listed “prohibited practices” specified by K.”
Kelly v. Kansas City, Kansas Cmty. Coll., 648 P.2d 225 (Kan. 1982).
“) K.S.A. 75-4334(6). The Public Employee Relations Board sits in review of public employer-employee matters as an administrative tribunal.”
Fhsu v. Aaup, 228 P.3d 403 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 8× “PERB's role in these proceedings is described in K.S.A. 75-4334: "(a) Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the board.”
City of Kansas v. Carpenters Dist. Council, 699 P.2d 493 (Kan. 1985).
· cites it 7× “60-904(c) and K.S.A. 75-4334. As the majority opinion correctly notes, the common law prohibits strikes by public employees.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4334(6) — 1 case
Kelly v. Kansas City, Kansas Cmty. Coll., 648 P.2d 225 (Kan. 1982).
“) K.S.A. 75-4334(6). The Public Employee Relations Board sits in review of public employer-employee matters as an administrative tribunal.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4334(a) — 3 cases
Fort Hays State Univ. v. Fort Hays State Univ. Chapter, 195 P.3d 259 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
“In fact, PERB’s jurisdiction is limited by K.S.A. 75-4334 to controversies concerning prohibited practices, and wrongful termination of an employment contract is not among the listed “prohibited practices” specified by K.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4334(b) — 7 cases
Coggins v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 581 P.2d 817 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
“The law faculty thereafter sought review in the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4334(b). The court rejected the law faculty’s procedural claims, holding that the board could properly function through three of its five members; the parties need not be served with copies of…”
State, Dep't of Admin. v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 894 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1995).
“See K.S.A. 75-4334(b). In this case, having determined that the KDA could not insist on the savings clause, and in view of the fact that an agreement had been reached at KSU and an agreement was all but reached at PSU — pending resolution of the savings clause dispute — PERB…”
Fort Hays State Univ. v. Fort Hays State Univ. Chapter, 195 P.3d 259 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
“In fact, PERB’s jurisdiction is limited by K.S.A. 75-4334 to controversies concerning prohibited practices, and wrongful termination of an employment contract is not among the listed “prohibited practices” specified by K.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4334(c) — 5 cases
State, Dep't of Admin. v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 894 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1995).
“See K.S.A. 75-4334(b). In this case, having determined that the KDA could not insist on the savings clause, and in view of the fact that an agreement had been reached at KSU and an agreement was all but reached at PSU — pending resolution of the savings clause dispute — PERB…”
Fhsu v. Aaup, 228 P.3d 403 (Kan. 2010).
“PERB's role in these proceedings is described in K.S.A. 75-4334: "(a) Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the board.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4334(d) — 1 case
Fort Hays State Univ. v. Fort Hays State Univ. Chapter, 195 P.3d 259 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
“In fact, PERB’s jurisdiction is limited by K.S.A. 75-4334 to controversies concerning prohibited practices, and wrongful termination of an employment contract is not among the listed “prohibited practices” specified by K.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4334(h) — 2 cases
Kansas Bd. of Regents v. Pittsburg State Univ. Chapter, 667 P.2d 306 (Kan. 1983).
“The items which PERB held to be mandatorily negotiable are: salary generation and salary allocation; out-of-state travel; promotions; summer employment; tenure; retrenchment; and access to personnel files. The district court affirmed PERB in all respects; the Regents and the…”
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.