Lancaster County v. PLRB
1110 C.D. 2012
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 6, 2016Background
- Lancaster County operated a Youth Intervention Center with detention and shelter sides; detention officers were the subject of a union organizing drive by AFSCME District Council 89 in 2010.
- Employees Adam Medina (3rd shift) and Tommy Epps (2nd shift) participated in union organizing and told their supervisors of their support; a representation petition was filed on June 10, 2010.
- Surveillance video showed Medina and Epps taking small snack items from coworker Evette Sepulveda’s open mailbox; both admitted taking snacks in incident reports.
- Center Director Drew Fredericks recommended immediate termination (rather than progressive discipline) because theft undermined staff as role models; Fredericks issued termination notices on June 23, 2010.
- Union filed unfair labor practice charges under PERA §§1201(a)(1) and (3); the PLRB found County violated PERA by discharging Medina and Epps for protected union activity. The Commonwealth Court initially reversed, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and remanded for unresolved issues.
- On remand this Court considered County’s remaining arguments (mainly challenges to several PLRB factual findings) and concluded those findings are supported by substantial evidence, affirming the PLRB’s order that County violated PERA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union/PLRB) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of employees’ protected activity by first‑level supervisors can be imputed to the County | Supervisors Arnold and Delgado had knowledge; supervisor knowledge satisfies the employer‑knowledge element under PERA | County argued that the decisionmaker (Fredericks) lacked knowledge and thus County lacked the requisite knowledge of protected activity | Supreme Court already held supervisor knowledge is imputed; this Court follows and treats knowledge requirement as met |
| Whether County’s discharges were motivated by anti‑union animus (prima facie showing and totality of circumstances) | Union: totality of circumstances (timing, failure to follow progressive discipline, supervisors’ knowledge, credibility findings) shows anti‑union motive | County argued evidence was legally insufficient, no proof Fredericks knew about union activity, and alternative nondiscriminatory reasons justified termination | Supreme Court held PLRB’s finding of anti‑union animus was supported; this Court treats that issue as resolved in favor of PLRB |
| Whether PLRB’s factual findings (e.g., mailbox policy, prior complaints, discipline review) are supported by substantial evidence | PLRB: credibility determinations and witness testimony provide substantial evidence for each challenged finding | County: contended PLRB mischaracterized testimony and findings lacked record support | This Court reviewed challenged findings, found testimony and record evidence support them, and upheld the PLRB’s findings |
| Whether PLRB substituted its judgment for County’s disciplinary decisions or improperly undermined Juvenile Act obligations | PLRB/Union: County’s failure to apply progressive discipline and the context supported inference of anti‑union animus; PLRB’s review is proper to enforce PERA | County: PLRB improperly second‑guessed disciplinary decisions and undermined County’s safety/child welfare concerns | Court declined to relitigate discipline reasonableness because Supreme Court already sustained PLRB’s legal conclusions; on remand this Court affirmed PLRB’s factual findings and conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 124 A.3d 1269 (Pa. 2015) (Supreme Court reversed Commonwealth Court and upheld PLRB’s findings of supervisor knowledge and anti‑union animus)
- Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 82 A.3d 1098 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Commonwealth Court’s earlier decision reversing PLRB)
- Case v. Hazleton Area School District, 915 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (elements for proving a §1201(a)(3) unfair labor practice)
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 460 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1983) (relationship between §8(a)(3) and §8(a)(1) principles; derivative violations)
- Joint Bargaining Committee of Pennsylvania Social Services v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 469 A.2d 150 (Pa. 1983) (PLRB decisions upheld if factual findings have substantial evidence and legal conclusions are reasonable)
- Lehighton Area School Dist. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 682 A.2d 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (PLRB factfinding and credibility deference)
- Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 747 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (findings conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)
- Delaware County Lodge No. 27, Fraternal Order of Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 694 A.2d 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Shive v. Bellefonte Area Bd. of School Directors, 317 A.2d 311 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (substantial evidence standard)
- Waldameer Park, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (substantial evidence review where conflicting evidence exists)