147 A.3d 1259
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Governor Wolf issued Executive Order 2015-05 establishing procedures for "Participant-Directed" home care programs, including an Advisory Group and a process for electing a single Direct Care Worker (DCW) Representative to meet-and-confer with the Department of Human Services (Department).
- The Order required the Department to compile a monthly DCW List (names/addresses of paid DCWs) and authorized the AAA to run elections; a recognized Representative (UHCWP) was certified and received the DCW List.
- Petitioners (two participants, a DCW, and provider associations) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the Order unlawfully creates collective-bargaining–type rights and interferes with participant–DCW relationships in the home.
- Respondents (Governor Wolf and the Department) defended the Order as an information-gathering and management tool within executive authority and denied it created enforceable labor rights.
- The Commonwealth Court granted summary relief in part: it upheld Section 2 (Advisory Group) but declared Sections 3 and 4 (election/meet-and-confer process and DCW List) and related definitions and parts of Section 5 invalid and enjoined their enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Executive Order exceeds executive power by creating enforceable collective-bargaining rights for DCWs | Order creates a process (exclusive Representative, meet-and-confer, MOUs) that functionally grants collective-bargaining rights contrary to statute | Order is a permissible directive to subordinates and an information/management tool to improve services | Held: Sections creating election, meet-and-confer, and DCW List (Sections 3–4 and related parts) exceed executive authority and are invalid |
| Whether DCWs are "employees" covered by PLRA/PERA or excluded as domestic servants | Petitioners: DCWs fall within PLRA exclusion (domestic service) and thus cannot be granted collective-bargaining rights by executive order | Respondents: Order does not create collective-bargaining rights; it merely facilitates communication and policy input | Held: Because PLRA excludes domestic-service workers from collective-bargaining rights, the Order’s Section 3/4 scheme conflicts with statutory scheme and is invalid (majority treated DCWs as excluded for purposes of analysis) |
| Whether Sections 3–4 are severable from the rest of the Order | Petitioners: Invalid provisions are interwoven and should be voided in part | Respondents: Invalid parts can be severed, leaving the remainder operative | Held: Section 2 is severable and valid; Sections 3 and 4 and related definitions/parts of Section 1 and 5 are not severable and are void |
| Standing and ripeness of Petitioners to challenge the Order | Petitioners: They face concrete, imminent injury (interference with participant control, solicitation/privacy, and representative selection) | Respondents: Petitioners lack standing and claims are not ripe | Held: Petitioners (individuals) have standing; ripeness/justiciability objections overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Markham v. Wolf, 136 A.3d 134 (Pa. 2016) (addressing standing and intervention challenges to a DCW executive order)
- Arneson v. Wolf, 117 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (en banc) (principles limiting executive orders to execution of laws)
- Shapp v. Butera, 348 A.2d 910 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (classification of executive orders: ceremonial, directives to subordinates, or implementation of law)
- Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n v. Casey, 600 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (executive cannot usurp legislative power)
- Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 8 A.3d 866 (Pa. 2010) (interpretation of "domestic services" exemption under state wage law)
- Blue Mountain Mushroom Co. v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 735 A.2d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Pennsylvania need not adopt federal labor definitions; statutory exclusions interpreted under state law)