Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
124 A.3d 1269
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Lancaster County terminated two detention officers, Adam Medina and Tommy Epps, after surveillance showed them taking small snack items from a coworker’s open mailbox; both had participated in a recent union organizing drive.
- Supervisors Arnold and Delgado knew each officer had expressed union support; County Director Fredericks made the termination decision after reviewing limited videotape and consulting Human Resources.
- The PLRB hearing examiner found the terminations violated PERA §§ 1201(a)(1) and (3) based on timing, deviation from progressive discipline, and investigative irregularities, and ordered reinstatement and back pay.
- The PLRB adopted the hearing examiner’s decision; the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the Board erred by imputing lower-level supervisors’ knowledge to the employer and finding insufficient proof of anti-union motive.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine proper deference to the PLRB on (1) whether supervisor knowledge satisfies PERA’s knowledge element and (2) whether the Board reasonably found anti-union motive based on the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union/PLRB) | Defendant's Argument (County/Commonwealth Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge element of PERA §1201(a)(3) is satisfied by a supervisor’s knowledge | Supervisor (Arnold/Delgado) knowledge of protected activity imputes to employer; Board precedent supports this | Commonwealth Court: must show decisionmaker had knowledge; cannot mechanically impute lower-level supervisor knowledge | Held: A supervisor’s knowledge satisfies PERA’s knowledge element; PLRB’s construction entitled to deference; Commonwealth Court erred |
| Whether terminations were motivated by anti-union animus (motive/pretext) | Timing, failure to follow progressive discipline, limited investigation, and disparate treatment show pretext and anti-union motive | County: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (theft); investigation discretion; timing is coincidental; Commonwealth Court: evidence shows only suspicion/conjecture | Held: PLRB’s credibility findings and inference from totality of circumstances were supported by substantial evidence; motive inference upheld |
| Proper standard of appellate review for PLRB factual findings | PLRB: deference required; factual credibility and totality-of-circumstances analysis should stand if supported by substantial evidence | Commonwealth Court: applied different legal standards and made credibility determinations | Held: Supreme Court reverses Commonwealth Court for failing to give proper deference to PLRB; substantial-evidence standard controls |
| Whether reversal of §1201(a)(3) requires remand on independent §1201(a)(1) claim | Union/PLRB: if Commonwealth Court reversed §1201(a)(3), it should remand re §1201(a)(1) | County: no need to remand; §1201(a)(3) dispositive | Held: Because Supreme Court reinstates PLRB §1201(a)(3) finding, it also reverses Commonwealth Court’s §1201(a)(1) ruling (no remand necessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- PLRB v. Cadman, 370 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1952) (supervisor knowledge imputed to employer under public-sector labor statute)
- St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. PLRB, 473 Pa. 101 (Pa. 1977) (elements for §1201(a)(3): protected activity, employer knowledge, unlawful motive)
- Mars Area Sch. Dist. v. PLRB, 480 Pa. 295 (Pa. 1978) (§1201(a)(3) violations are species of §1201(a)(1) generic unfair practice)
- Borough of Ellwood City v. PLRB, 606 Pa. 356 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review limited to constitutional error, legal error, procedural irregularity, or whether agency findings are supported by substantial evidence)
- Sand’s Restaurant Corp. v. PLRB, 429 Pa. 479 (Pa. 1968) (Board may evaluate credibility of employer’s proffered reason when inferring improper motive)