E.M. Elliott v. PLRB
E.M. Elliott v. PLRB - 588 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Mar 2, 2017Background
- Elliott, a Lancaster County correctional officer, served probationary period starting May 20, 2013; initially worked 8:00–4:00 shift, later volunteered to 12:00–8:00 and repeatedly requested return to 8–4 shift.
- 8–4 shift was posted May 21, 2014; Elliott bid May 29 and was awarded June 9, 2014; County reposted the 8–4 position on June 24, 2014 after a lieutenant allegedly told subordinates the posting excluded female officers.
- Elliott bid again June 29, 2014 but a more senior officer received the shift; she was informed July 14, 2014 she would be moved to another shift and filed a grievance July 23, 2014 (later withdrawn by the Union on September 8, 2014).
- Elliott filed an unfair practice charge with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PERA §§1201(a)(1), (3), (4)) on November 6, 2014 alleging CBA/side-agreement violations and retaliation.
- The Board’s hearing officer recommended dismissal; the Board adopted the recommendation (as amended) and dismissed Elliott’s charge. Elliott petitioned this Court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reposting violated §1201(a)(3) (anti‑union discrimination) | Reposting violated the CBA/side agreement and was retaliatory for her protected activity | County: reposting not motivated by anti‑union animus; only Union may enforce CBA | Held: No §1201(a)(3) violation — timeline shows reposting occurred before grievance; Elliott failed to prove unlawful motive |
| Whether reposting violated §1201(a)(4) (discrimination for filing Board complaints) | Elliott claimed discrimination tied to protected activity | County/Board: §1201(a)(4) protects activity before the Board; Elliott did not preserve or prove such activity predating reposting | Held: Issue waived (no exceptions filed); even if preserved, cannot show protected PERA activity before reposting |
| Whether reposting violates §1201(a)(1) derivatively (via §§1201(a)(3)/(4)) | Enforcement of CBA/side agreement is "mutual aid and protection" under Article IV, supporting §1201(a)(1) claim | Board/County: dispute is contract/grievance matter for the Union/arbitrator; no unfair‑practice shown | Held: No derivative §1201(a)(1) violation because §§1201(a)(3)/(4) not established |
| Whether reposting constitutes independent §1201(a)(1) interference | Reposting interfered with employee rights to mutual aid/protection | County/Board: conduct is a contract/grievance issue not rising to independent interference | Held: No independent §1201(a)(1) violation; dispute is breach‑of‑contract/grievance matter appropriate for arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehighton Area School District v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 682 A.2d 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (prima facie showing for §1201(a)(3) requires proof of unlawful motive/anti‑union animus)
- AFSCME, District Council 47, Local 2187 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 41 A.3d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (Board remedies unfair‑practice statutes, not ordinary contract breaches; contract disputes resolved via grievance/arbitration)
- Township of Upper Saucon v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 620 A.2d 71 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (appellate review limited when issues were not raised/preserved before the agency)