Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, AFT, Local 3 v. School District of Philadelphia
109 A.3d 298
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- The School Reform Commission (SRC) governing the School District of Philadelphia adopted Resolution SRC-1 (Oct. 6, 2014) purporting to cancel the expired collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT) and impose nine new economic terms (primarily changes to health benefits, opt-outs, contributions, substitute pay, and certain leave/termination pay provisions).
- PFT filed for injunctive relief (Oct. 16, 2014) arguing SRC lacked statutory authority to cancel or unilaterally modify CBA terms and that PERA required maintenance of the status quo while bargaining continued; the trial court converted a preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction (Oct. 27, 2014).
- SRC appealed, claiming authority to cancel the CBA under section 693(a)(1) (incorporated into section 696) of the School Code to effect needed economies, and argued PERA was repealed to the extent it conflicted with Act 46.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the SRC had statutory authority to cancel or unilaterally modify the expired CBA absent a bargaining impasse and whether PERA remained operative for the disputed mandatory subjects of bargaining.
- The court concluded (for reasons different from the trial court) that the SRC lacked express statutory authority to cancel a CBA or impose unilateral economic changes while negotiations continued and no impasse had been established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PFT) | Defendant's Argument (SRC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SRC could cancel the expired CBA under section 693/696 | CBA is a "teachers’ contract"/protected and SRC has no authority to cancel or modify it unilaterally | Section 693(a)(1) (incorporated in 696) authorizes cancellation of contracts to effect economies, which includes CBAs | Held: SRC lacks express statutory authority to cancel a CBA or unilaterally impose new economic terms absent legislative grant or impasse |
| Whether PERA was repealed as to these matters | PERA governs maintenance of status quo on mandatory subjects; SRC may not act unilaterally while bargaining continues | Section 28(a) of Act 46 repealed PERA where inconsistent, so SRC’s Section 696 powers supersede PERA | Held: PERA remains controlling for mandatory subjects except where Act 46 expressly conflicts; no such conflict here |
| Whether SRC’s actions were permissible absent an impasse | Employer must maintain status quo after CBA expiration until a bona fide impasse is reached | SRC equates statutory cancellation with authority to act as if an impasse existed | Held: Parties agreed no impasse; absent impasse employer may not unilaterally change mandatory bargaining terms (Cumberland doctrine / Norwin) |
| Whether term "teachers’ contracts" in §693(a)(1) excludes CBAs | PFT: phrase historically and practically encompasses CBAs; collective agreements govern teacher employment | SRC: phrase predates PERA and refers only to individual teacher contracts under §§1121–1127 | Held: Court did not find §693/696 to supply authority to cancel CBAs; regardless of semantic debate, legislature did not clearly authorize SRC to cancel/replace CBAs absent impasse or express text |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwin School District v. Belan, 507 A.2d 373 (Pa. 1986) (status-quo rule and impasse doctrine for public employers after CBA expiration)
- Appeal of Cumberland Valley School District, 394 A.2d 946 (Pa. 1978) (employer may not unilaterally change terms in expired CBA; set forth the Cumberland doctrine)
- Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Williamsport Area School District, 406 A.2d 329 (Pa. 1979) (unilateral changes to expired CBA can constitute unfair labor practice; collective bargaining protections enforced)
- Leechburg Area School District v. Leechburg Education Ass'n, 380 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1977) (individual teacher contracts cannot undermine a CBA)
- Klopp v. Keystone Insurance Companies, 595 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1991) (definition of contract "cancellation")
- School Reform Commission v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, 95 A.3d 269 (Pa. 2014) (discussion of SRC powers under Act 46; referenced legislative and governance changes affecting SRC)