AFSCME, District Council 47, Local 2187 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 97
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- In 2009, City of Philadelphia initiated layoffs due to budget shortfalls affecting the Streets Department.
- Two employees in the layoff unit held the Departmental Accounting System Specialist position: Marguerite Morgan and Rosemary Ray.
- Morgan was a union steward and AFSCME liaison; Ray was a shop steward in another department.
- Section 17(C) of the CBA provides super seniority for district stewards/elected officials who are subject to layoffs; the parties faced an unusual scenario with only two stewards in the unit.
- City determined neither Morgan nor Ray could receive super seniority; used Civil Service Regulation tie-breakers resulting in Ray keeping the position and Morgan being laid off.
- AFSCME filed unfair labor practice charges (PERA sections 1201(a)(1), (3), (5)); Hearing Examiner dismissed; Board affirmed; AFSCME appealed to Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Morgan's super seniority violated PERA Section 17(C). | AFSCME argues Morgan alone is entitled to super seniority as the only steward in the layoff unit. | City contends Section 17(C) applies to both stewards; tie-breakers are used when there is a tie, resulting in Morgan's layoff. | Affirmed; no clear repudiation; tie-breakers valid. |
| Whether the Board erred in applying sound arguable basis instead of plain contract language. | CBA language clear; no room for interpretation; no contract dispute. | There can be a sound arguable basis for interpreting CBA language under unusual facts. | Affirmed; Board did not err; City had sound arguable basis. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding no anti-union animus in Morgan's layoff. | City officials' knowledge of Morgan's union activities shows animus. | Record supports the layoff was dictated by layoff policies/procedures, not animus. | Affirmed; Board's anti-union animus finding supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Troopers Ass'n v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 761 A.2d 645 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (Board reviews for unfair labor practices, not contract breach.)
- Capitol Police Lodge No. 85 v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 10 A.3d 407 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (Contractual privilege defense allows dismissal if sound arguable basis in CBA.)
- Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist. v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 631 A.2d 734 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (Unilateral changes to CBA terms constitute unfair labor practice.)
- St. Joseph's Hospital v. PLRB, 473 Pa. 101 (Pa. 1977) (Reviewing board credibility and evidence weighing; substantial evidence standard.)
- Capitol Police Lodge No. 85, 10 A.3d at 410, 10 A.3d 407 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (Longstanding precedent for sound arguable basis in CBA interpretation.)
- Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727 v. Campbell, 337 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1949) (CBA interpretation and union seniority principles in broader NLRA context.)
- NLRB v. Joy Technologies Inc., 990 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. 1993) (Union officials’ super seniority recognized in certain contexts.)