*1 ap- perform of our function Court to this function questions presented pellate and rule review required. Sharps Conva- appeal, is all on Department Public Home v. Welfare, lescent of 300 A.2d necessary findings of Commission Because evidence, supported by no and because substantial are committed, the order the court law of has been error pleas is affirmed. common
Order Now, of the Court order And County, Philadelphia September Pleas Common April 12, 1985, Term, 1984, 123, dated is affirmed. No. Pennsylvania Jersey Education Shore and All Classroom State Association Education Employed Personnel Teachers Professional Jersey Area Are School District Who Shore Pennsylvania As- Members of the State Education Jersey The Asso- and/or Shore Education sociation Appellants Jersey ciation, v. Shore Area School Appellees.
District, *2 14, 1986, before President Argued May Judge Judges Crumlish, Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Jr., and Palladino. Barry, Colins Hebe, Hebe, William A. Gleason & Spencer, ap- pellants. Reeder, McCormick, Reeder, Nichols,
Paul W. Samo, Knecht, &Bahl for appellees. 23, 1986:
Opinion July Palladino, is an This Shore Education appeal Jersey Association1 from an order of the Court (Association) Pleas (trial court) Common of Lycoming County from continuing engage Association Area Shore against Jersey We affirm. (District). the collective bargaining
On agree- June which had existed ment between Associ- previously and the The ation District Association and expired. District commenced new negotiations agreement, with in accordance provisions of Public Employ- Act, ee Relations Act of PL. amended, 43 P.S. §§1101.101-1101.2301 but (PERA), were unsuccessful a new contract before achieving the commencement 1984-85 school year. *3 5, 1984, teachers work on the to reported September first of the and went out on strike on day year, school 10, 1984. September 1984, 8, filed
On October the District a complaint and equity enjoin to seeking 10, held on October hearing 1984. At the conclusion the trial hearing, announced court its to decision 15, the strike effective October 1984. enjoin The Asso- then advised the trial ciation its members return willing 11, to work on October 1984. Based this offer Association, the trial modified and its-order effec- 23, 1984, 1984. On tive October October after the trial court denied rehearing, request Appellants reconsideration.
1 This appeal brought by professional all em- is teachers of ployees are Jersey Shore District. Some Area School members of the are others Jersey Shore Education members of For Pennsylvania Association. State Education brevity’s sake we “Association”. Appellants refer all order, an trial court filed its opin- of support fact, of findings including
ion which contained following: law required by regulation
7. The District a minimum of of instruction days to provide Students, on which must be or completed its 28, 1985. before June District to of provide days In order for the
8. before instruc- on or instruction June resume no later than October must tion 1984. 1984- The Districts calendar for the original
9. last instruction as listed the of day 85 school year Districts 1985. The new proposed June last the first and of resumed days lists calendar as October June 1985. the defendants were to con-
11. If the strike by tinue, would be sustained: the following injury would suffer substantial loss The District
a) state for failure to comply reimbursement a mini- state providing requirements mum of 180 or before instructional on days June 28, 1985.
b) District could be subject, potentially, action De- legal brought Pennsylvania Education, to enforce seeking partment of instruc- providing requirements *4 tion. District that the the concluded harm to
The trial court a created of Fact number Finding in as enumerated and health, wel- the safety danger clear and present this conclu- the basis of was It fare the public. the strike. enjoined court that trial sion order The Association from the of the trial appeals trial erred enjoining asserting the strike because the harm to the District which the trial court relied loss of state upon, particularly subsidies,2 and does constitute a clear dan not public. ger
We that the matter in this begin noting involved by However, is now we decide the merits moot. will appeal because it re involves an and appeal important issue which would curring public otherwise repeatedly review. v. escape County Mifflin Stewart, A. 2d 1012 (1986).
Our of review is limited to scope determining whether reasonable existed apparently grounds relief the trial court. ordered Bethel Park equitable by 2 The trial court concluded also that if the strike was en- not joined the District would suffer injuries, including: other the ex- penditure of sums money substantial the salaries of non- striking costs; employees high maintenance senior students would be disadvantaged in seeking college; admission to all students would be unable to state-mandated test- participate in ing programs; being be partic- students would harmed unable to by ipate working free-lunch program; parents would be by harmed the need babysitting to secure services.
This Court types necessarily has held that these harm do not present danger public constitute clear and to' the or threat require would because a teachers each of harms is an legislature these which the could inconvenience reason ably expected ordinarily have occur as result of a by public Township Bristol school teachers. Education Association v. Township, District Bristol School Commonwealth Ct. that the correctly Because we conclude determined health, clear that a safety or welfare of presented impending subsidies, loss of state we need not other address the harms occasioned the strike in bar. case
168 Teachers, v. Bethel Park Federation (1980). 49, 420 2d 18 If 54 Ct. A. Pa. Commonwealth findings and if the support the trial courts exists for by palpa the trial are not of law relied rules wrong clearly inapplicable, bly ac we will affirm the or trial Id. tion of the court. provides PERA, §1101.1003, P.S. 1003 of
Section by public employees may only be a lawful strike that enjoined that the strike creates a the trial court “finds if safety danger health, threat to clear and or by respect public.” to strikes or welfare of the With teachers, has held: this Court danger state subsi- that District will lose grounds proper dies because of a strike would be danger enjoining the strike if were for such present’. ... If the strike lasted so ‘clear any long, therefore, continuation enough days unlikely that would be make it up required, available to make properly con- from teachers could tinuing it. Armstrong
Armstrong Education As- School District v. sociation, 378, 385-86, 291 A.2d 124-25 case that the loss bar trial found require- comply subsidies
of state failure to providing immi- ment of instruction finding supported record, This nent. evidence of testimony Superintendent particularly the District. The trial Schools court concluded state loss of a clear subsidies created imminent public. is in ac- This conclusion prior an decisions constitute does not cord with our error of law. is affirmed.
Accordingly, the order Order the order of the Court of Now, And Lycoming County, Common Pleas of at No. 84-01972, dated October is affirmed. *6 Dissenting Opinion Craig: Judge consistently
The decisions of this have held prospective subsidy that the loss of state failure to 180-day comply requirement not, is itself, a sufficient basis trial court to issue an injunction against a strike of schoolteachers. In Bristol Township Education Association v. School District of Township, Pa. 463, Bristol 14 Commonwealth Ct. 322 (1974), majority dissenting A.2d 767 both the and the opinions asserted that the mere threatened loss subsidy injunction. is alone not sufficient to warrant an findings case, this and conclusions of the trial judge identify particular danger arising no from the subsidy; injunction thus, threatened loss of to affirm the passage is base it of time alone. Judge Judge join
President this Doyle Crumlish dissent.
Dissenting Opinion Doyle: In Scanlon v. Mount Union Area Board School Directors, 51 Pa. 83, Commonwealth Ct. (1980), per curiam, 452 A.2d aff'd (1982), days required we held that 180 of instruction are under Section 1501 Public School Code of 19491 activity justify providing and strike can less than 180 in days only scheduling impos structional when it renders Although sible. the trial court in the instance provide required found in order to number of amended, 10, 1949, Act of March as P.L. §15- 24 P.S. 1501. no later than resume have to instruction would an allow in that finding implicit
October been made up have six snow which could days2 ance of did occur. if snow ways in various other Educa- v. Armstrong In Armstrong tion we said: A.2d 125 (1972) in- is on the basis to be enjoined
If exist, will actually time make-up sufficient reached the least have must at the very ei- make it where its continuation point difficult for or extremely ther clearly impossible . . . lost make the District up time]. [the here was As premature; injunction Armstrong, to the no there was clear under the issuance of an injunction required prior Act.3 Relations Section 1003 Public Employee *7 Craig this dissent. joins possible last testified that the Superintendent of Schools day pupil and still schedule continue 1984. There other days, days, with snow was October six 19, 1984. day have been October testimony that last amended, 43 P.S. P.L. Act of §1101.1003. 2d
512 A. Trawick, Di- Bonnie Niles, W. Bruce Appellant v. Bureau, Tax Claim Warren rector County Appellee.