156 A.3d 384
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Emmaus Fire Department was a nonprofit "volunteer" company, but Borough Ordinance No. 887 instituted officer appointments by Borough Council and characterized officers as at-will appointees.
- Borough owns the firehouse and most equipment, funds the Fire Department budget (38 line items; >$400k), supplies fuel, and restricts expenditures above $500 without Borough approval.
- Firefighters are paid hourly wages ($10–$15/hr), receive W-2s, punch timecards, may receive overtime if authorized, and are subject to Borough payroll/tax withholding.
- Day-to-day management is performed by the Fire Chief and Borough Secretary (both Borough employees); the Borough Secretary schedules shifts and tracks hours; firefighters must remain at the station during shifts.
- Hiring requires Fire Chief recommendation and Borough Council appointment; discipline is administered by the Fire Chief but the Borough Manager has authority to discipline/overrule per Board findings.
- Procedural posture: PLRB hearing examiner certified the union under Act 111; the Board dismissed Borough exceptions; Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's certification.
Issues
| Issue | Borough's Argument | Association's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether firefighters are "employees" under Act 111 or volunteers | Borough: firefighters remain volunteers; payment/administrative contacts are statutory or peripheral and do not create employment | Association: hourly wages, payroll, Borough control over terms, discipline, scheduling and hiring establish employer-employee relationship | Held: Firefighters are employees under Act 111 (affirmed) |
| Whether Borough exercised sufficient control (selection, discipline, direction) to be employer | Borough: alleged Board findings overstated; disciplinary authority and hiring are not meaningfully controlled by Borough | Association: Borough sets pay, appoints officers, controls budget, scheduling, discipline pipeline, and directs work | Held: Borough had right/power to select, discharge, and direct work — control sufficient under Sweet test |
| Legal effect of Borough Council "appoint" vs "hire" language | Borough: semantic difference; Council "appoints," so not a hiring authority creating employment | Association: appointment by Council based on Chief’s recommendation is functionally hiring for hourly-paid service | Held: No meaningful legal distinction; Council’s appointment constitutes hiring for purposes of Act 111 |
| Whether other statutes or benefits (VFRAA, FFITDL, workers’ comp) estop firefighters from claiming employee status or preclude Act 111 coverage | Borough: statutory framework for volunteer firefighters and municipal assistance demonstrates volunteers’ unique status; benefits/relief associations contradict employee status | Association: statutory benefits do not preclude Act 111 coverage; payment and Borough control govern employment status | Held: Statutory schemes for volunteer firefighters do not preclude Act 111; peripheral statutory contacts do not defeat employment finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweet v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 322 A.2d 362 (Pa. 1974) (establishes test: right to select, discharge, and direct work determines employer status)
- Kelley v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co., 113 A. 419 (Pa. 1921) (employer liability where manager/agent controlled details of work and discharge)
- International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2844, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 504 A.2d 422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (contrast case where volunteer company, not municipality, controlled employment terms)
- Seattle Opera v. National Labor Relations Board, 292 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (payment of compensation is a key indicator of employee status)
- Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire District, 717 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2013) (courts treat remuneration as dispositive to distinguish volunteers from employees)
- Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 124 A.3d 1269 (Pa. 2015) (supervisors and agents acting in employer interest can constitute the employer under public-sector labor law)