Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
8 A.3d 300
Pa.2010Background
- Association filed PERA unfair practices charge against PASSHE during 2007 negotiations for a successor contract; alleged threats to health benefits and pay if employees struck; issues centered on terms of summer school benefits vs. nine-month year; parties reached tentative agreement July 2, 2007 but Association pressed on in August/October 2007 to continue and litigate; Board dismissed the charge as moot on November 2, 2007; Association appealed; Commonwealth Court reversed, holding Board improperly dismissed mootness; Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review, framing the issue as whether settlement renders pre-settlement charges automatically moot; Board’s decision ultimately reinstated on appeal; dissent argues Board abused discretion by relying on a blanket mootness policy without proper analysis.
- 1.5
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is settlement of negotiations automatically moot for pre-settlement charges? | Association argues mootness exceptions apply; issues capable of repetition | PASSHE asserts Board’s discretion and no automatic mootness rule | No; court held Commonwealth Court erred; Board’s discretion upheld and charge not automatically moot. |
| Did the Board abuse its discretion by relying on a general policy to dismiss moot charges? | Association contends Board failed proper mootness analysis | PASSHE argues Board appropriately applied mootness policy with deference | No abuse of discretion; Board’s policy and its nuanced consideration of mootness exceptions are permissible. |
| Are the mootness exceptions (capable of repetition, evading review) applicable here? | Association relies on capable of repetition and evading review due to summer-term cycles | Board weighed exceptions but found no demonstration of present public importance or likely repetition | Record shows Board properly rejected exceptions; no reversal on this ground. |
| Does public importance exception apply to allow a complaint despite mootness? | Association argues broad public importance; Jersey Shore analogy suggesting public impact | Board found no great public importance | Not satisfied; no basis to issue a complaint on public-importance exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rendell v. Pa. State Ethics Comm’n, 603 Pa. 292, 983 A.2d 708 (2009) (two mootness exceptions: public importance and capable of repetition yet evading review)
- In re Gross, 476 Pa. 203, 382 A.2d 116 (1978) (mootness exceptions limited; rare instances where important questions arise)
- Commonwealth v. Sloan, 589 Pa. 15, 907 A.2d 460 (2006) (standards for mootness exceptions and administrative review)
- Joint Bargaining Committee, 484 Pa. 175, 398 A.2d 1001 (1979) (mootness results where contract resolves dispute; court refused to speculate on future)