85 Pa. Commw. 182 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Opinion by
Before this Court is an appeal by Joseph F. Barron (Appellant), on behalf of himself and the Philadelphia Fire Officers from a decision and order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sustaining a preliminary objection by the City of Philadelphia (City) and other defendants to that court’s jurisdiction over his complaint in equity and trespass.
In April of 1983, Appellant, a Fire Battalion Chief employed by the City, brought a complaint in equity and trespass against the City on behalf of himself and the Philadelphia Fire Officers seeking to -enjoin the
In his appeal, Appellant argues that the allegations contained in the complaint regarding the manner in which the agency shop clause in the collective bargaining agreement violates both Commonwealth and City law are such that there is subject matter jurisdiction in the court of common pleas. With respect to the unfair labor practice charge, we disagree. It is well settled that the PLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges arising under the PLRA. Kerr v. Butler Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO, 447 Pa. 247, 288 A.2d 525 (1972); Section 8 of the PLRA, 43 P.S. §211.8. And, whereas the unfair labor practice charge in the instant matter does not emanate from a bargaining impasse which would be subject to the arbitration provisions of Act 111, we read Act 111 to be in pari materia with the PLRA. City of Coatesville v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 77 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 265, 465 A.2d 1073 (1983) :
This conclusion does not, however, terminate this matter. Appellant has raised a number, of other statutes and ordinances separate and apart from the PLRA as being in conflict with the agency shop clause herein. The court of common pleas does have jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the parties arising under an existing collective bargaining agreement under Act 111 absent an arbitration clause for such in the agreement or a mutual revocation of such a clause. City of Allentown. It also possesses jurisdiction to ascertain whether a provision of a collective bargaining agreement resulting from interest arbitration under Act 111, such as that herein, is in conflict with a controlling law and hence, invalid. See Fraternal Order of Police v. Hickey, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 236, 403 A.2d 131 (1979); Allegheny County Firefighters Local 1038 v. County of Allegheny, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 81, 299 A.2d 60 (1973). We, therefore, are constrained to hold that dismissal of Appellant’s complaint was premature at this time and we remand this matter to the court of common pleas so that it may address the outstanding preliminary objections of the defendants as they pertain to the remaining charges of Appellant’s complaint.
Order
Now, September 19, 1984, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the above captioned matter, dated June 13,1983, No. 4140 April
Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, payment is made either by authorized payroll deduction or directly by the individual.
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) has certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of all uniformed members of the City’s fire department. The PLRB has also refused to certify the Philadelphia Fire Officers as a separate bargaining unit, a decision which was vacated on appeal to this Court and remanded to the PLRB as being illegal to the extent that it results in managerial employees being members of the Union. In the Matter of: The Employes of the City of Philadelphia (Fire Department), 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 274, 477 A.2d 47 (1984).
City of Coatesville involved Coatesville’s refusal to bargain with its police officers. Similarly, in County of Bucks v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 77 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 259, 465 A.2d 731 (1983), the PLRB was held to have jurisdiction when the unfair labor practice charge resulted from the termination of its park ranger program after the rangers were certified as employees under Act 111.