City of Erie v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
32 A.3d 625
| Pa. | 2011Background
- IAFF Local 293 represents Erie firefighters; City of Erie has bargained over multiple CBAs including 2005–2007 agreement.
- Article XI, Section 1 stated pension fund would be governed by statutes and local ordinances; bolded post-2005 disability increase referenced.
- 2002 ACT 111 interest arbitration created a DROP providing lump-sum retirement with reduced pension; City sought to vacate this provision.
- 2004 City enacted PLSDO amendment (May 15, 2004) creating a similar lump-sum option but avoiding state funding for PLSDO participants.
- 2006 Auditor General found some aspects of PLSDO illegal regarding state aid; City repealed PLSDO via Ordinance 75-2006 in December 2006 without bargaining.
- 2007 Union filed unfair labor practices charge; PLRB proceedings led to Commonwealth Court decision and ultimate Supreme Court reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Act 111 require bargaining over pension benefits, regardless of incorporation in the CBA? | City must bargain under Act 111; PLSDO was bargained-for term. | Plainfield Twp. exception allows unilateral change if not bargained. | Yes, bargaining required; Act 111 governs pension benefits regardless of incorporation. |
| Did City violate PLRA by repealing PLSDO without bargaining? | Unilateral repeal interferes with bargaining rights. | Plainfield Twp. supports unilateral repeal when not bargained for; PLSDO not illegal. | Yes, it violated PLRA; unilateral repeal without bargaining was an unfair labor practice. |
| Is Plainfield Twp. applicable when PLSDO is legal but not incorporated? | Plainfield Twp. does not apply where PLSDO is legal. | Plainfield Twp. governs where illegal term predated agreement. | Disapproved; Plainfield Twp. does not justify avoiding bargaining when term is legal. |
| Can an employer rely on general language in Article XI, Section 1 to avoid bargaining over PLSDO? | General governance language could incorporate PLSDO by reference. | General clause is omnibus; does not specifically incorporate PLSDO. | No, the language does not properly exempt from bargaining; bargaining required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellwood City v. PLRB, 606 Pa. 356 (2010) (reaffirmed that unilateral changes to mandatory subjects constitute unfair labor practices)
- City of Erie v. PLRB, 606 Pa. 291 (2010) (affirmed need to bargain over pension benefits under Act 111)
- Plainfield Twp. Policemen’s Ass’n v. PLRB, 695 A.2d 984 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (employer may change illegal terms not incorporated in CBA; limited exception criticized here)
- Fraternal Order of Police, E.B. Jermyn Lodge #2 v. Hickey, 499 Pa. 194 (1982) (plurality: illegality of term does not excuse bargaining duties when term benefited employer)
- Upper Chichester Twp. v. PLRB, 153 Pa.Cmwlth. 446 (1993) (distinguishes when illegal term bargained for vs not)