Ass'n of Coll. Facs. v. Labor Rels. Bd.
8 A.3d 300
| Pa. | 2010Background
- 2007 PASHE negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement; Association filed unfair practices charge with the Board alleging threats to withhold benefits and pay if employees struck; threats concerned summer school benefits earned with nine-month academic year; tentative contract reached on July 2, 2007 but Board later continued to process the charge upon Association's request; Board dismissed the charge as moot on November 2, 2007, asserting no present effect and lack of mootness exceptions; Commonwealth Court reversed, holding Board abused discretion by effectively eliminating mootness exceptions and deeming the dispute capable of repetition yet evading review; Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether settlement renders moot the pre-settlement charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether settlement of negotiations automatically moots prior union charges | Association argues mootness exceptions apply; Board abused discretion | Board contends mootness policy is discretionary and appropriate here | No automatic mootness; board discretion affirmed when exceptions not shown |
| Whether the Board properly considered mootness exceptions (capable of repetition, likely to evade review) | Association says exceptions apply given summer-cycle contracts | Board argued exceptions not demonstrated | Board did not abuse discretion; exceptions not established here |
| Whether Board's policy to dismiss moot charges rendered moot by new contract should be exclusive | Association contends policy is blanket rule unjustified | Board policy is reasonable and deference owed | Board policy not exclusive; proper deference but must consider exceptions when warranted |
| Whether the Board's Final Order sufficiently explained its mootness analysis | Association contends analysis was inadequate | Board explained its approach and discretion | Board's reasoning not arbitrary; no manifest abuse |
| Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in reversing the Board’s mootness determination | Association claims error in misapplying mootness doctrine | Commonwealth Court wrongly viewed Board’s discretion as abuse | Commonwealth Court erred; remand to reinstate Board decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Jersey Shore Area Sch. Dist. v. Jersey Shore Educ. Ass'n, 519 Pa. 398 (Pa. 1988) (mootness exceptions can apply for matters of public importance or repetition)
- Rendell v. Pa. State Ethics Comm'n, 603 Pa. 292 (Pa. 2009) (mootness and repetition in public ethics context)
- In re Gross, 476 Pa. 203 (Pa. 1978) (two exceptions to mootness; capable of repetition yet evading review; not simply theoretical)
- Commonwealth v. Joint Bargaining Comm., 484 Pa. 175 (Pa. 1979) (mootness and contract settlement may resolve disputes without issuing complaints)