Summary
In City of Coatesville v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 77 Pa. Commw. 265, 465 A.2d 1073 (1983), this court held that the PLRB had jurisdiction to decide unfair labor practice charges involving Act 111 employees.
Summary of this case from City of Bethlehem v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardOpinion
Argued April 7, 1983
September 22, 1983.
Labor — Unfair labor practice — Jurisdiction of Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board — Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237 — Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168 — Refusal to bargain.
1. The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction under provisions of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, over unfair labor practices charges arising out of the refusal of a municipality to bargain on a particular issue with employes covered under the Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as the latter act lacks any unique and specific procedures for dealing with such refusal to bargain and the exercise of such jurisdiction does not conflict with policies of that act. [267-8]
Argued April 7, 1983, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., and Judges WILLIAMS, JR., and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1950 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in case of Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. City of Coatesville, Case No. PF-C-80-81-E.
Charge of unfair labor practices filed with Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board by Coatesville Police Benevolent Association against City of Coatesville. Charges sustained. City filed exceptions. Exceptions dismissed. City appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Michael J. Ossip, with him, Timothy P. O'Reilly, Michael A. Hacker, and Alexander Endy, City Solicitor, for petitioner.
James L. Crawford, with him, Frayda Kamber and Anthony C. Busillo, II, for respondent. Jonathan Walters, Kirschner, Walters Willig, for intervenor.
The City of Coatesville (City) appeals a Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) determination that it committed unfair labor practices. We affirm.
The Coatesville Police Benevolent Association (Association), the certified representative of the City's police officers under the Collective Bargaining by Policemen or Firemen Act (Act III), filed a complaint with the Board when the City refused to bargain over its unilateral increase in the amount of the officers' contribution to their pension fund. The Board concluded that the City's refusal to bargain was an unfair labor practice, in violation of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA), and directed it to bargain.
Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, 43 P. S. § 217.1.
Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, as amended, 43 P. S. § 211.1. The Board concluded that the County had violated Sections 6(1)(a), and (e) of the Act, 43 P. S. § 211.6(1)(a) and (e).
The sole issue is whether the Board has jurisdiction to decide unfair labor practice charges involving Act 111 employees. We hold that the Board has jurisdiction.
In Philadelphia Fire Officers Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 470 Pa. 550, 369 A.2d 259 (1977), our Supreme Court, by reading the PLRA and Act 111 in pari materia, held that the Board had jurisdiction under the PLRA to conduct representation elections for Act 111 employees. The Court realized, however, that only portions of the PLRA could be read into Act 111:
We recognize, of course, . . . that Act No. 111 provides its own unique and specific procedure, namely, binding arbitration, as the final resort in the event of a bargaining impasse. These provisions of Act No. 111, enacted later than the PLRA, are of course controlling where the situation warrants. (Citations omitted; emphasis added.)
Id. at 558, 369 A.2d at 262. Thus, where the PLRA's provisions conflict with Act 111, they will not be read into the latter enactment.
For instance, the PLRA's authorization of peaceful strikes, 43 P. S. § 211.5, cannot be applied to Act 111 employees, whose exclusive remedy for bargaining impasses is binding arbitration. Borough of New Cumberland v. Police Employees of the Borough of New Cumberland, 51 Pa. Commw. 435, 414 A.2d 761 (1980).
Coatesville contends that Geriot v. Council of Borough of Darby, 491 Pa. 63, 417 A.2d 1144 (1980), limits the Board's Act 111 jurisdiction to conducting representation elections. This contention is incorrect. Geriot held only that exclusive jurisdiction granted the Board under the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA) did not extend to Act 111 employees. This is consistent with Philadelphia Fire Officers, where the Court stated: "[E]mployees covered by Act No. 111 are not in any respect covered by the PERA . . . ." Id. at 558, 369 A.2d at 262. (Emphasis added.)
Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P. S. § 1101.101 (Supp. 1983-84).
This Court has previously indicated that the Board has unfair labor practice jurisdiction under Act 111. See Local 302, International Association of Fire Fighters et al. v. City of Allentown, 55 Pa. Commw. 599, 423 A.2d 1119 (1980). The Board's exercise of jurisdiction regarding unfair labor practices in the case now before us does not conflict with Act 111's policy in favor of binding arbitration; on the contrary, it furthers the Act's goal of ensuring expeditious and harmonious resolutions of labor disputes involving policemen and firemen. Further, Act 111 lacks any "unique and specific" procedures for dealing with an employer's refusal to bargain. Thus, the Board properly exercised jurisdiction over the unfair labor practice charges filed in this case.
Affirmed.
ORDER
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board order, No. PF-C-80-81-E, dated July 7, 1981, is hereby affirmed.
Judge BARBIERI concurs in the result only.