Federal Law And Public Employee Relations - 1425 Words

Pittsburg State University/Kansas National Education Association versus Kansas Board of Regents/Pittsburg State and Public Employee Relations Board case study This case study began as a result of a complaint that was filed with the Public Employee Relations Act (PERB) by the Pittsburg State University/Kansas National Education Association (KNEA). The Pittsburg State University’s faculty members were represented by the Kansas National Education Association. In the complaint, Kansas National Education Association proclaimed that the Kansas Board of Regents/Pittsburg State University committed an illegal practice according to the Public Employer-Employee Relations Act due to a lack of communication prior to adopting a policy pertaining to the†¦show more content†¦(4) Instructors have three major responsibilities: teaching, scholarship, and creative endeavor and service. (5)The university provided instructors with office space, equipment, research facilities, supplies, and secretarial assistant. (6) Instructors conducted research, wrote scholarly articles, published scholarly articles, created songs or artwork and other forms o f intellectual property. (7) Instructors who published scholarly works performance was better on their evaluations and received a higher level of compensation. (8) Promotions were based on publication of books articles and presentation of information at conferences. (Kansas City Courts, 2005) An Opinion was filed on July 15, 1983 by the Supreme Court of Kansas that further explained the Public Employer-Employee Relations Act (PEERA) that became effective in 1972. The document asserts that the PEERA enforces mandatory responsibilities upon the public employer and the representatives of public employee organizations to meet and confer and enter into discussions in good faith with an affirmative willingness to resolve grievances, disputes and to promote the improvement of employer-employee relations (Courtlistener.com). The PEERA, K.S.A. 75-4321 et seq., stipulates that a public employer is required to meet and deliberate with an acknowledged public employee organization on the subject of ownership of intellectual property providing that the ownership of intellectual property is a condition of