51 Pa. Commw. 576 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1980
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
The Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County has appealed from a final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County directing them to enter into collective bargaining with representatives of the Montgomery County detectives. We affirm.
On June 23, 1978, J. Peirce Anderson, Esquire, wrote to the Board of Commissioners as follows:
Please be advised that 21 of 24 of the County Detectives have determined to enter into collective bargaining pursuant to Act 111 [Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. §217.1 et seq.] and have selected Lodge No. 14, Fraternal Order of Police-Team Concept and myself as bargaining agent and attorney. Accordingly, please accept this letter as a formal request to enter into bargaining sessions concerning terms and conditions of employment____”
John Stewart, Esquire, replied on behalf of the Board of Commissioners by a letter dated June 30, 1978, writing in part:
It is the position of the Commissioners that Act 111 does not apply to Montgomery County and further that it is unconstitutional in scope and in intent. The Commissioners, therefore, regret to advise you that they will not enter into bargaining sessions with you or the Fraternal Order of Police.
The Commissioners first say it was error to give peremptory judgment after conducting a hearing to resolve material issues of fact raised by the pleadings. They contend that peremptory judgment may be entered only where a plaintiff’s right to relief is clear on the face of the pleadings and affidavits. We disagree. Rule 1098 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides pertinently:
At any time after the filing of the complaint [in mandamus], the court may enter judgment if the right of the plaintiff thereto is clear, but the judgment may be opened upon cause shown.
The rule does not limit the court to an examination of the pleadings in its inquiry into whether the plaintiff has a clear right to relief and the Commissioners cite no authority to support their argument that the matter must be decided solely on pleadings. While it is true that a court cannot enter peremptory judgment where there are substantial issues of fact, Venneri v. County of Allegheny, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 105, 289 A.2d 523 (1972), the judge here correctly found, after the evidentiary hearing, that there remained no substantially disputed issue of facts.
The Commissioners next say that the court had no jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) has exclusive jurisdiction over questions of representation. In support of this argument they re
Finally, the Commissioners say that Act 111 is unconstitutional because it does not require the election of bargaining representatives by secret ballot and denies employees equal protection of the laws by providing for the election of representatives by the vote of only fifty percent of policemen and firemen. Because we hold that the Commissioners have no standing to raise these issues, we need not decide them here.
The Supreme Court has held that “a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not ‘aggrieved’ thereby and has no standing to obtain a judicial resolution of his challenge.” Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 192, 346 A.2d 269, 280 (1975). (Footnote omitted). Here, the Commissioners
Policemen or firemen employed by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth or by the Commonwealth shall, through labor organization or other representatives designated by fifty percent, or more of such policemen or firemen, have the right to bargain collectively with their public employers concerning the terms and conditions of their employment....
The rights to bargain collectively and through representatives chosen as the Act provides are those of the policemen or firemen, so that if the statute violates constitutional rights, it is they who are affected, not the public employer.
Order affirmed.
Order
And Now, this 29th day of May, 1980, the final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County dated June 13, 1979 is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
I disagree that the court below had jurisdiction to determine the questions of representation and appropriateness of bargaining unit presented to it. Accordingly, I dissent.
While Act No. Ill, Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. §217.1 et seq., is silent as to the procedure for certification of a labor representative, reason requires that the designation take place in accordance with the provisions and procedures already established by statute and administered by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. This conclusion is
The Etoaj'd of Commissioners of Montgomery County raised questiqns of the proper labor representative and the procedure for electioq and selection of the same. The exclusive jurisdiction to resolve these questions is placed in the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, not the Court of Common Pleas.