Printable Format72-2236. Prohibited practices, determination of existence; procedure; hearing. (a) Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the secretary. Proceedings against the party alleged to have committed a prohibited practice shall be commenced within six months of the date of the alleged practice by service upon it by the secretary of a written notice, together with a copy of the charges. The accused party shall have 20 days within which to serve a written answer to the charges, unless the secretary determines an emergency exists and requires the accused party to serve a written answer to the charges within 24 hours of 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 shall follow the procedures contained in K.S.A. 77-536, and amendments thereto. A strike or lockout shall be construed to be an emergency.
(b) The secretary shall either dismiss the complaint or determine that a prohibited practice has been or is being committed, and shall enter a final order granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought. Any action of the secretary pursuant to this subsection is subject to review and enforcement in accordance with the Kansas judicial review act. Venue of the action for review is the judicial district where the principal offices of the pertinent board of education are located.
The action for review shall be by trial de novo with or without a jury in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 60-238, and amendments thereto, and the court may, in its discretion, permit any party or the secretary to submit additional evidence on any issue. The action for review shall be heard and determined by the court as expeditiously as possible.
(c) If there is an alleged violation of either subsection (b)(8) or (c)(5) of K.S.A. 72-2235, and amendments thereto, the aggrieved party or the secretary is authorized to seek relief in district court.
History: L. 1980, ch. 220, § 13; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 130; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 279; L. 2010, ch. 17, § 178; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
72-5430a.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. District court judgment set aside because remedies provided by statute not exhausted. U.S.D. No. 251 v. Secretary of Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 233 Kan. 436, 437, 661 P.2d 1248 (1983).
2. Procedure for review of decision on negotiability of evaluation criteria and evaluation procedures examined. U.S.D. No. 352 v. NEA-Goodland, 246 Kan. 137, 139, 785 P.2d 993 (1990).
3. No provision of act limits time to file prohibited practice complaint to period of negotiations; secretary's authority examined. U.S.D. No. 279 v. Secretary of Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 14 Kan. App. 2d 248, 249; affirmed in part, reversed in part, 247 Kan. 519, 525, 530, 802 P.2d 516 (1990).
4. Cited in review of authority of Board of Healing Arts to regulate the practice of medicine. Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 248 Kan. 589, 598, 808 P.2d 1355 (1991).
5. Review is decision of KDHR secretary in a prohibited practices case by trial de novo. Garden City Educators' Ass'n v. U.S.D. No. 457, 15 Kan. App. 2d 187, 192, 805 P.2d 511 (1991).
6. School board's refusal to negotiate evaluation procedures for implementing new teacher evaluation criteria determined a prohibited practice under K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(5). U.S.D. No. 314 v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 18 Kan. App. 2d 596, 598, 856 P.2d 1343 (1993).
7. Cited; PNA law and statutes distinguished from PEERA; PERB has no authority to award monetary damages. Ft. Hays St. Univ. v. University Ch., Am. Ass'n of Univ. Profs., 40 Kan. App. 2d 714, 731, 195 P.3d 259 (2008).