Capitol Police Lodge No. 85 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 666
Pa. Commw. Ct.2010Background
- FOP is the exclusive bargaining representative for Capitol Police Officers; a long-running interest arbitration award (2007-2011) incorporated Article 44 Unit Work.
- Article 44, Section 2 prohibits staffing new posts/assignments in a way that reduces the Capitol Police complement.
- Commonwealth sold Philadelphia properties and later leased Arch Street and Market Street; in Nov 2008 it used private guards to operate scanners in Arch Street.
- Since 2005, Capitol Police Officers staffed scanners at five Harrisburg buildings under a prior arrangement.
- In Dec 2008, FOP filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging unilateral transfer of bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit personnel; Hearing Examiner found an ULP.
- PLRB, on Sept. 15, 2009, sustained exceptions and dismissed the ULP, holding Article 44 provides a sound arguable basis to hire private guards; the dispute over exclusivity was not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Commonwealth violate the PLRA by transferring bargaining unit work to private guards? | FOP argues unilateral transfer breached the statute. | Commonwealth relies on Article 44 Sec. 2’s contractual privilege. | PLRB proper; affirmed that a sound arguable basis exists to assign the work |
| Does Article 44 Sec. 2 allow a new post to be staffed by private guards without reducing Capitol Police complement? | Work is unit work; should be police officers; exclusivity not reached. | Article 44 Sec. 2 permits assignment if no reduction. | Contractual language provides sound arguable basis; interpretation reserved to arbitrator |
| Should the PLRB interpret the CBA or leave to arbitration for contract interpretation? | PLRB must decide ULP based on statutory rights; arbitration elsewhere. | Arbitrator interprets contract; PLRB not to resolve contract interpretation. | PLRB acted within scope; exclusivity not decided; contract interpretation for arbitrator |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkes-Barre Township v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 878 A.2d 977 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (Board reviews for violations of statute, not contract; may review to prevent repudiation)
- Pennsylvania State Troopers Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 761 A.2d 645 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (Board not to interpret contracts; may review for repudiation of contract provisions)
- Department of General Services v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 85, 903 A.2d 84 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (Arbitrator held scanners require police powers; contract interpretation governed by arbitration)