Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

STATE SYSTEM HIGHER EDUCATION v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/29/87)

decided: June 29, 1987.

STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in case of State System of Higher Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Kutztown University) Employer and Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF) Union, No. PERA-C-85-221-E.

COUNSEL

Robert J. Schwartz, Assistant Counsel, with him, John D. Raup, Chief Counsel, for petitioner.

James L. Crawford, for respondent.

James L. Cowden, Handler, Gerber, Johnston, Strokoff & Cowden, for intervenor, Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties.

Judges Craig and Barry, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 152]

This is an appeal by the State System of Higher Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (SSHE), from an order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) which reversed a hearing examiner's order

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 153]

    made pursuant to an interpretation of an arbitrator's award.

SSHE and the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (the Union) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) running from July 1, 1981 through June 30, 1984. Article V of the CBA provided for grievance procedures and arbitration. On May 17, 1983, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the management of Kutztown State College violated the terms of the CBA when it failed to comply with the terms of the CBA and refused to reimburse teachers for certain course work.

At the heart of the Union's complaint was its allegation that inasmuch as "courses by special arrangement" and "individualized instruction", two forms of instruction at Kutztown State College, are virtually the same, teachers providing such instruction should be compensated for both. Courses by special arrangement are courses which are scheduled as part of the regular semester curriculum but, because of course/time conflicts, cannot be taken at the regularly scheduled time by students who may need these credits to complete their program of study. Individualized instruction is similar in that it involves courses which are not scheduled in a semester but are nevertheless necessary for some of the students to complete their course of study. The former was not compensable and considered a volunteer service while the latter was and still is compensable under Article XXVI, a special provision of the CBA, which reads:

INDEPENDENT STUDY AND INDIVIDUALIZED ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.