Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 80
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Union filed an unfair labor practices charge with the Board alleging discipline of two union officers, Williams (VP) and Plant (President), was retaliatory for protected activities and anti-union in nature.
- Disciplinary action reports accused Williams and Plant of misrepresenting complaints about a captain and conducting an unauthorized investigation.
- Dougherty issued disciplinary action reports June 5, 2009, which were rescinded in March 2010 after further investigation found no misrepresentations.
- Hearing examiner found no merit to the ULP and treated 6(l)(e) as waived; 6(l)(a) derivative claim and 6(l)(c) discrimination claim were not proven.
- Board adopted the examiner’s decision; Union appealed arguing anti-union animus and standalone 6(l)(a) independent violation.
- Court affirms Board’s adjudication that the State Police did not commit unfair labor practices in issuing and rescinding the reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State Police actions were inherently destructive of employee rights under Great Dane. | Union argues actions were inherently destructive. | Board found issue waived and actions not inherently destructive. | Waived; even if considered, no independent interference shown. |
| Whether Union proved a prima facie case of anti-union animus. | Union contends evidence showed anti-union bias in investigations. | Brown’s investigation was initiated at Plant’s request; no conspiracy shown. | Not proven; evidence insufficient to establish prima facie anti-union animus. |
| Whether the Board erred in dismissing an independent violation of Section 6(l)(a). | Complaint alleged direct independent interference. | Complaint lacked explicit facts showing interference, restraint, or coercion. | Correct dismissal; no independent violation pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Labor Relations Board v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1967) (employer conduct inherently destructive of employee rights may dispense with proving anti-union motive)
- Shive v. Bellefonte Area Board of School Directors, 317 A.2d 311 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (prima facie anti-union bias requires substantial evidence, not mere suspicion)
- Borough of Ellwood City v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 998 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2010) (board findings reviewing substantial evidence; standard of review)
- Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Stairways, Inc., 425 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (burden on union to prove protected activity and anti-union motivation)