Chester Upland School District v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
150 A.3d 143
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Chester Upland School District and two unions had CBAs that expired June 30, 2013; in August 2013 the District issued a new Attendance and Punctuality policy addressing sick-leave tracking and progressive discipline.
- Unions protested the unilateral policy as a mandatory subject of bargaining and filed unfair labor practice charges under Sections 1201(a)(1) and (a)(5) of PERA.
- Hearing Examiner dismissed the charge, finding the Unions failed to prove the policy created any new sources of discipline or changed terms and conditions of employment.
- The Board reversed, finding the policy differed from the CBAs (though both provided eleven sick days) by imposing progressive disciplinary steps tied to sick-day usage and thus established a prima facie refusal-to-bargain; burden shifted to the District to show the policy merely codified prior practice.
- The District conceded it had not actually imposed discipline before the policy; the Board concluded the District failed to show a binding past practice and ordered rescission, make-whole relief, and cease-and-desist.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the Board’s application of the State College balancing test and its allocation of burdens (Wilkes-Barre framework) were lawful and supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District’s unilateral Attendance Policy constituted an unfair labor practice by changing terms/conditions of employment | Unions: policy alters sick-leave usage/discipline and is a mandatory bargaining subject | District: policy only tracks/monitors sick leave; does not reduce days or repudiate CBAs | Held: Policy imposed progressive discipline tied to sick-day use and changed terms — mandatory subject; unlawful unilateral change |
| Proper burden allocation after employer issues a unit-wide policy differing from CBA | Unions: once policy differs from CBA, prima facie case established and burden shifts to employer to prove no actual change | District: complainant bears full burden; Board improperly shifted burden to employer | Held: Court approved Board’s approach (Wilkes-Barre) — initial prima facie shifts burden to employer to establish defense (e.g., binding past practice or contractual privilege) |
| Whether the policy falls within managerial prerogative (not subject to bargaining) | N/A (Unions argue it's negotiable) | District: enforcing attendance is managerial duty, Ellwood City requires inquiry into managerial prerogative first | Held: Court applied State College balancing test and concluded disciplinary scheme impacts employees more than core managerial policies; not shielded by managerial prerogative |
| Sufficiency of evidence that District had past practice justifying policy | N/A | District: stipulated it could have imposed such discipline previously; that suffices to show no change | Held: Stipulation that discipline could have been imposed did not prove it had been imposed; no substantial evidence of a binding past practice — defense failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. Labor Relations Bd. v. State College Sch. Dist., 337 A.2d 262 (Pa. 1975) (establishes balancing test for mandatory subjects of bargaining)
- Borough of Ellwood City v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 998 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2010) (discusses Section 702 managerial prerogatives and limits on bargaining)
- Wilkes-Barre Township v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 878 A.2d 977 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (employer’s unilateral, unit‑wide policy differing from CBA can create prima facie case and shift burden to employer to show contractual or past-practice defense)
- Lancaster County v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 124 A.3d 1269 (Pa. 2015) (agencies’ factual determinations entitled to deference; substantial‑evidence standard)
- County of Delaware v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 735 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (unilateral change in mandatory bargaining subject is an unfair labor practice)
- Abington Transp. Ass'n v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 570 A.2d 108 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (rules on tardiness/absenteeism are generally mandatory subjects of bargaining)
- Commonwealth v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 459 A.2d 452 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (unilateral changes to terms/conditions can be unfair labor practices regardless of whether a CBA is in effect)