Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 544
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- County’s Youth Intervention Center employed detention officers Tommy Epps (2nd shift) and Adam Medina (3rd shift); both participated in a 2010 union organizing drive by AFSCME.
- Surveillance video (June 16–17, 2010) showed Medina and Epps taking small snack bags from co-worker Evette Sepulveda’s mailbox; both admitted taking the items and submitted written reports.
- Center Director Drew Fredericks reviewed the tape, consulted HR Director Andrea McCue, and recommended immediate termination under a policy allowing discharge for serious misconduct; notices issued June 23, 2010.
- Medina and Epps appealed through the County grievance process; appeals denied and terminations upheld. A third employee, Latoya Boddy, was also terminated.
- PLRB hearing examiner found (1) employees engaged in protected activity, (2) supervisors knew and that knowledge was imputed to the employer, and (3) termination was motivated by anti-union animus (timing, alleged pretext, departure from progressive discipline). PLRB adopted the hearing examiner’s decision.
- Commonwealth Court reversed: it held the record lacked substantial evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the employees’ union activity (rejecting mechanical imputation of lower-level supervisors’ knowledge) and that evidence of pretext/timing was insufficient to infer anti-union animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PLRB / Union) | Defendant's Argument (Lancaster County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer knew of employees’ protected union activity | Knowledge may be imputed from supervisors (Arnold, W. Delgado) who were aware; thus employer knew | Supervisors who heard about union activity were low-level and not involved in the termination decision; imputation to decisionmaker (Fredericks) is improper | Reversed PLRB: Imputation cannot be automatic; union must show decisionmaker knew (directly or by inferable communication) — here record lacks such evidence |
| Whether terminations were motivated by anti-union animus (a 1201(a)(3) claim) | Timing, claimed pretext (departure from progressive discipline, incomplete investigation, failure to credit exculpatory evidence) support inference of anti-union motive | Terminations followed admitted misconduct; County’s investigation and discipline were reasonable and consistent with policy; timing alone insufficient | Reversed PLRB: Evidence of pretext was not affirmative/substantial; timing without stronger indicia is insufficient to infer anti-union animus |
| Whether PLRB reasonably relied on supervisory knowledge as dispositive proof | PLRB relied on precedent imputing supervisor knowledge to employer | County argued federal precedent rejects mechanical imputation to decisionmakers | Held: Adopted federal approach — circumstantial inferences permitted but mechanical imputation disallowed; PLRB erred in treating supervisor knowledge as dispositive without evidence it reached the decisionmaker |
| Derivative §1201(a)(1) violation based on §1201(a)(3) finding | PLRB treated (a)(1) as derivative of (a)(3) and enforced both | County contested both | Held: Because (a)(3) finding reversed, the derivative (a)(1) finding also reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vulcan Basement Waterproofing v. NLRB, 219 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2000) (rejecting automatic imputation of a foreman’s knowledge to the employer/decisionmaker)
- Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. NLRB, 177 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 1999) (Board may not impute low-level supervisor knowledge to decisionmaker)
- Pioneer Natural Gas Co. v. NLRB, 662 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981) (imputation error where supervisors’ knowledge was attributed to directors who made discipline decisions without evidence of communication)
- Lehighton Area School District v. PLRB, 682 A.2d 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (timing plus substantial evidence of pretext can support inference of anti-union animus)
- Shive v. Bellefonte Area Bd. of Sch. Directors, 317 A.2d 311 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (timing alone insufficient to prove anti-union motive where knowledge of activity by decisionmakers not shown)
- Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass’n v. PLRB, 39 A.3d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (evidence amounting to suspicion and conjecture insubstantial to prove anti-union bias)