Dailey v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
148 A.3d 920
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Dr. Mary Ann Dailey, an APSCUF member since 2006, filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging APSCUF coerced members by structuring an annual $25 "dues rebate" so that unreturned rebates remain in the union treasury and may be used for political activity.
- Dailey paid union dues (1.15% of salary) via payroll deduction under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing a maintenance-of-membership provision limiting resignation windows.
- Dailey alleged she did not receive a rebate designation card in time for 2015 (and received one too late in 2014), so $25 stayed with APSCUF; she argued this effectively compelled financial support beyond what PERA permits.
- The Board’s Secretary declined to issue a complaint, concluding the allegations did not show coercion under PERA §1201(b)(1) and involved internal union matters outside the Board’s unfair-practice jurisdiction (and that duty-of-fair-representation claims belong in common pleas court).
- The Commonwealth Court held the dispute was not moot (APSCUF’s post-charge payment implicated the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception) and reviewed the Board’s declination for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the Board’s statutory interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APSCUF’s dues-rebate process unlawfully coerced members in violation of PERA §1201(b)(1) | Dailey: rebate design coerces members into forfeiting $25 and thus assisting union political activity; she lacked meaningful notice in 2015 | Board/APSCUF: Dailey voluntarily remained a member under a CBA that authorized dues; rebate election options exist and members could resign or make earlier elections | Held: No coercion shown. Dues deduction was authorized and rebate process provided options; Board’s application of §1201(b)(1) was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the Board’s “internal union matters” jurisdictional limitation conflicts with PERA | Dailey: PERA’s maintenance-of-membership makes resignation impractical, so internal-union immunity improperly shields conduct that affects employment | Board: PERA and precedent permit noninterference in internal union governance absent interference with employment status or exercise of PERA rights | Held: The limitation is consistent with PERA and federal analogues; Board may decline to police internal dues decisions absent interference with statutory rights |
| Whether APSCUF’s dues practice is not an internal union matter because dues are a condition of employment | Dailey: Because the CBA makes dues a condition of employment, dues calculation affects employment and should be reviewable | Board: No statutory authority to adjudicate appropriateness of dues; no precedent where Board scrutinized dues amounts; only excessive initiation-fee/dues situations under NLRA analogues are cognizable | Held: Dues decision treated as internal union matter here; Board did not abuse discretion by declining to interfere |
| Mootness: whether post-charge rebate payment moots review | Board: APSCUF’s payment of the $25 rebate to Dailey rendered the dispute moot | Dailey: Issue fits the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception because unions could routinely pay complainants after charges to avoid review | Held: Not moot; exception applies, so court addressed merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Case v. Hazleton Area Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, 928 A.2d 1154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (duty-of-fair-representation claims fall within common pleas court jurisdiction)
- Ass’n of Pa. State Coll. & Univ. Faculties v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 8 A.3d 300 (Pa. 2010) (standard for Board discretion and mootness exception discussion)
- Borough of Ellwood City v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 998 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2010) (judicial review scope of Board decisions)
- Lancaster Cnty. v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 94 A.3d 979 (Pa. 2014) (deference to Board statutory interpretation unless clearly erroneous)
- City of Erie v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 32 A.3d 625 (Pa. 2011) (deference to Board in labor relations factfinding)
- Pa. Labor Relations Bd. v. E. Lancaster Cnty. Ed. Ass’n, 427 A.2d 305 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (internal union affairs, including dues and ratification procedures, are generally insulated)
- Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1967) (Congressional intent to limit government policing of union internal affairs)
- Commun’ns Workers of Am. v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1988) (limitations on use of member funds and members’ rights concerning union expenditures)
- Hollinger v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 365 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1976) (dues deduction can implicate §1201(b)(1) if done without valid authorization)