42 Pa. Commw. 47 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1979
Opinion by
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) exceeded its jurisdictional authority in finding that petitioner had improperly furloughed respondent in
^ Since petitioner does not seriously dispute the Commission’s findings or its conclusion that respondent was not properly furloughed under the Civil Service Act, we need not detail the facts in this case. Petitioner failed to rebut evidence that respondent’s position had not been abolished. Further, it was clear he had not been replaced. Either would have been' necessary for a furlough. Thus, the fact that petitioner established a prima facie case that could have been the reason for a furlough is of no moment and need not further be considered.
Petitioner argues that since respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit (in addition to being a civil service employee), the furlough procedures of the collective bargaining agreement should govern the propriety of the furlough and be determined through arbitration pursuant to the Public Employe Relations Act.
There are two answers to petitioner’s argument. First, irrespective of a collective bargaining agreement, the Commission is legislatively vested with the power to determine whether there has been a violation of the Civil Service Act. See Scuoteguazza v. Department of Transportation, 28 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 403, 368 A.2d 869 (1977). Second, there is no basis in the adjudication or the record to support the assertion
Accordingly, we will enter the following
Order
And Now, April 17, 1979, the order of the State Civil Service Commission, at No. 1967, dated March 23, 1978, is hereby affirmed.
Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. §741.802.
See Section 903 of the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §1101.903.