*3 NIX, C.J., Before LARSEN, and FLAHERTY, McDER MOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA PAPADAKOS, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT McDermott, Justice.
Appellants have brought appeal to challenge an order of the Commonwealth Court which affirmed a decision of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. February eleven female employees Crown Seal, Cork and Inc. (Company) went to the offices of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to complain that the Company, with the assistance acquiescence union, the Sheet Metal Production Workers Union-Lo- (Union), cal 266 was discriminating against them and all other production female employees, the basis of sex. At this time these women voiced their displeasure over the Company’s actions, Union’s but no one them among filed an individual complaint.
In April, one of the women, Martin, eleven Mary filed an However, individual complaint. this complaint was withdrawn October of that same year. *4 1970,
In December in based part on the information brought to its attention parties, above the Commis- sion, motion, on its own filed a “Commissioner’s Com- plaint” against the and the Company Union. This complaint consisted of pages two and made general allegations con- 1 cerning “unlawful employment practices.” There was no allegations 1. The relevant paragraph as contained in 3 were: (sic), 22, On or about to wit complainant alleges December 1970 the respondent that Company engages employment in unlawful practices respect which are employ- to female ees, sex, transfer, because of their hiring, assignment, in seniority, complain- the individual complaint any in this of mention ants. 1971, 11, filed an appellant McNasby Elizabeth
On June in she “laid alleged which she that was complaint, individual her her regard seniority position from off without complaint of her sex.” This was even- inspector, because complaint with the 1970 Commissioner’s tually joined processing. of administrative purposes Commission, in accordance with April, acting (Act),3 Human Relations Act issued a Pennsylvania conciliation efforts. finding probable cause and initiated mid counsel for both the Union See By 43 P.S. § had entered Company appearances. 16,1974, in handed down a decision On October Court Human Relations Commission v. U.S. Pennsylvania Corp., Steel Therein we stated complaint merely held that a Commissioner’s invalid, general allegations discriminatory practices satisfy “particularity” that such a failed to Act, requirement of Section 9 of the 43 P.S. 959. This § present, decision was relevant context since the Com missioner’s this action was instituted sub U.S. Steel. the same as the stantially one dismissed 27, 1975, On October the Commission filed a second complaint against the and the Union. This Company second complaint, as an “Amended designated Complaint,” set discrimination, allegations forth detailed of unlawful sex following and listed the women as individual complainants: Eleanor Neyer, Cooper, Margaret Joan Sarah Fel- Murphy, overtime,
salary, promotion, training layoff. denial of It is alleged respondent further Union concurs in and aids and discriminatory practices respondent Company. abets the of the alleged 2. She further that: respondents lay-off complainant ... consorted in the sex, FEMALE, because of her and have
prevented her, females, equal enjoying job opportuni- well as as all other from Company. ties at Crown Cork and Seal 27, 744, 9, 3. Act of October P.L. as amended. *5 Mason, Knowles, Lorraine
mey, Virginia Yocum, Doris McGrody, Pekala, Edith Marie Theresa Cheplick, Henrietta Hunter, Ann Jacyzyn Theresa Reed. Despite having had no contact Commission for almost five years, these women been contacted by investigators of the Commission for purpose of this filing “Amended Com- plaint,” requested and were to file affidavits support charges. However, at the time this second was filed only Theresa Reed was em- ployed by the Company.4
This “Amended Complaint” was also joined with the original complaint (and the McNasby complaint) pur- poses administrative processing. Thereafter, April on 19, 1976, a finding probable cause was made by the Commission staff.
Responding to this “Amended Complaint” the Company filed an answer and new matter. The Union declined to file answer, but submitted a letter indicating that they did not believe an answer was required.
Pursuant to statute the Commission undertook concilia- efforts, failed; tion and a public hearing was directed panel be held before a of Commissioners. Due to exten- prehearing sive litigation hearing no was held until October however, 1978. Once begun, the hearings required 37 days.
Prior to these hearings, February the Company had filed a motion to dismiss the “Amended Complaint.” the memorandum of law accompanying motion, argued that Company the original 1970 complaint lacked sufficient particularity, and therefore both complaints should be dismissed. The Commission reserved its ruling on this motion pending completion of the public hearing.
On September 1981, the Commissioners issued their Fact, “Findings Law, Conclusions of Opinion and Final Jacyzyn 4. Ms. was laid off in Ñeyer, while Mur- Mason, Knowles, Yocum, phy, Felmey, Pekala, McGrody, Cheplick and Hunter were laid off for the final time between 1969 and 1971. Cooper disability Ms. retired February, n conclusion Company ultimate was that the *6 Their Order.” constituted the most “one of engaged practices sex that has discriminatory practices patterns blatant (the) Commissioners’ attention.”5 brought ever been E-4027; E-4249, 38. p. Dkt. Nos. Opinion, Commissioners’ (1) original The also concluded that: Commissioners “nullity”; and a insufficiently pleaded was was complaint (2) sufficiently particular was but McNasby (3) complainant; to her as-an individual applicable only original com- Complaint” effectively the “Amended was that, as for the unto itself. further concluded plaint They set the 90 statute of limitation remaining complainants, day Act, 959, all but 9 of the P.S. barred out Section relief. recovering any tangible Reed from Theresa for monetary The ordered relief Elizabeth Commission her from the date she filed McNasby, computed to be 31, 1975; also ordered through December class of females who were em- relief for “the monetary rights at Crown’s possessed employment or who ployed unit, during the production Plant No. and maintenance to December 1975.” Id. at 59. period July implement Company The also directed the Commission faith offers of program; good an affirmative action to make was laid off employee reinstatement to each female who retained; and to seniority a male of lesser was while shift, department, plant seniority sys- integrate tems. of. liabili- any absolved the Union
Though relief,6 ordered the Union was ty monetary award manner; non-discriminatory conduct its activities to: off; laid union dues while its members were collecting cease paid fees and reimburse all union dues and reinstatement or female were on status who by employees layoff who validity by Company is appealed and its 5. This conclusion was not not an issue in this action. that it Commissioners based this decision on their conclusion Company primarily responsible for the women’s was the that was earnings. diminution in at any were reinstated time 1975 and the July between effective date order. Commission’s Following opinion and order a for reconsider- request filed by request ation was the Commission’s staff. This 27, 1981, granted per- November and counsel was mitted further legal arguments: to submit one of which purported was the waiver and the Union of Company raising original complaint. the issue of the defective There- issued, after a and order af- supplementary opinion were order, firming original slight modifications. Com- Court, plainants appealed this order to the Commonwealth which affirmed.7 we allocatur. Upon petition granted We also affirm.
In pursuing appeal this have raised the following issues: whether the 1970 Commissioner’s com- limitations; plaint tolled the statute whether “Amended to the Complaint” original complaint dated back and effectively pleading; cured the defective whether raise, appellants prior failure of to to their for petition reconsideration, the timeliness of the Company’s objection pleading, waiver; to the defective was in itself a whether the Commissioners should have found that all the violations nature; continuing were of a whether the order of the Commissioners, relief, any which denied eleven women of constituted a process rights violation of their due and/or clause; equal protection whether the relief granted by the Commissioners too in scope; was limited and whether the Commissioners abused their discretion in failing declare the Union to jointly monetary damages. be liable these focus
Basically issues on the Commissioners’ deci- regarding original complaint sion the defective and the scope remedy. of the it is clear that the
Firstly,
original complaint, being
similar to the one of
substantially
disapproved
which we
Steel,
supra,
U.S.
defective;
do not
appellants
seriously contend otherwise.
it is
clear
Secondly,
equally
Opinion appears
(1983).
This
at 77 Pa.Cmwlth.
557 of the Human results power Relations Commission legislature’s delegation power. from the of such As such Pa. See power limits of that must construed. strictly be Corp., Relations Commission v. Minerals Human St. Joe also, Human (1978). See Pa. Pa. Zamantakis, Commission v. Relations A.2d 70 Relations jurisdiction statute the of the Human
By invoked a verified may by filing be particulars” “which shall set forth the Steel, 959. See U.S. of. 43 practice complained P.S. supra. A does not these stric filing comply tures invokes the improperly jurisdiction, Commission’s nullity. is fact a
Appellants argued have the original pleading notice, sufficiently put Company and Union on and like summons, for a praecipe writ should be sufficient toll the statute of limitation. We find no merit above, As argument. proceedings stated the Human before Relations Commission are the statute strictly governed by legislature. devised our are from They wholly distinct Procedure, proceedings pursuant to the Rules of Civil decisions thereunder are not dispositive proceedings be fore the Commission. *8 complaint defective,
Since the 1970 the Commission was without to jurisdiction rule on the merits of this case thus, until the properly pleaded “Amended Complaint,” we find no merit in appellant’s tolling argument. Similarly we dismiss their contention that the second cor- pleading first, rected the since the “Amended could not Complaint” properly be construed to ex facto convey post jurisdiction for a period beyond the limit. statutory
We also find appellants’ meritless waiver issue. Since the jurisdiction grant Commission’s exists solely by statute, to objections complaints properly which fail invoke that jurisdiction are in the nature of objections subject matter jurisdiction, any which be raised at may Alto Commission v. Pa. Human Relations
time. See
A.2d
4, 306
Association,
128 n.
Cemetery
Reste
(1973).
the
Additionally,
objections
884 n.
according
untimely
not
respondents
filed
were
were
the Human
before
accepted
practice
to the
standards
Supplementary
Commissioners’
Relations Commission. See
E-4027; E-4249
8.
Order,
p.
Dkt. Nos.
Opinion
challenged
have also
Commission’s
Complainants
grounds,
on constitutional
complaint
of the 1970
dismissal
case of
Supreme
United States
Court
on the recent
relying
Co., 455 U.S.
102 S.Ct.
Brush
v. Zimmerman
Logan
complainant
In
Logan
We have no However, situa- present it is to the inapplicable decision. here, excep- with the Logan tion. Unlike filed McNasby, complaints tion of Ms. never per opinion regard majority, the observation Blackmun, is instructive: of Mr. Justice procedural requirements erect reasonable may State stat- they to an be triggering right adjudication, for (citation omitted) or, appropriate limitations utes of case, (citation omitted). certain- filing fees And the State when it terminates a claim ly process accords due Logan’s equal protection the court concluded that 8. Four members of *9 rights were also violated. procedural reasonable or eviden- comply failure to with a (Citations omitted.) tiary (Emphasis original.) rule. 437, Id. at at 1158. S.Ct. fact that
Complainants
sought
have
circumvent the
complaints by arguing
did not file individual
they
complaint
preserved
claim was
because
Commissioner’s
This argument misperceives
their interests.
represented
its
nature of a
filed
the Commission on
by
complaint,
benefitting
own motion. Such a
while often
claimants,
is filed the Common-
individual
behalf of
wealth,
claimants,
as
to individuals
with the intent
opposed
interest
of vindicating
public
by eliminating
discrimina-
Thus,
practices.
here
not the
tory
were
parties
real
in the 1970
no
interest
have
foundation for
gener-
See
arguments.
their constitutional
Toll,
ally Smiler v.
(1953);
Appellant’s
arguments go
adequacy
to the
the Commission’s award. We have
held that
consistently
Commissioners,
award,
when
an
have
fashioning
broad
discretion and their
entitled
by
actions are
to deference
reviewing court. Pa. Human Relations Commission v.
Zamatakis,
supra.
Pa. Human Relations Commission
Park,
v. Alto Reste
supra,
adopted
following
we
stan
(Commission’s)
dard of review.
“The
order will not be
disturbed ‘unless it
be shown that the order is a patent
can
attempt
to achieve
other than can fairly
ends
be said to
(citation omitted).
effectuate
policies
the Act’ ...”
Id.
The decision of the Commissioners to limit the award of
monetary damages to 90
to the
days prior
filing
“Amended
the dis-
Complaint” represented
exercise of
cretion which
have been
That
they
expressly delegated.
that,
decision was
other
obviously
by
influenced
the fact
than Elizabeth
no
her
McNasby,
pressed
individual claimant
prodded
claim until
Commission. In these circum-
*10
of
not
limitation
benefits does
stances
Commissioner’s
of discretion.
to be
abuse
appear
that
refusal to conclude
for the Commissioner’s
basis
after
was
period
should
entered for
an award
be
such a
uphold
evidence to
that there was insufficient
simply
that conclusion.
supports
of the record
finding. Our review
deci
the Commissioner’s
Complainants
dispute
also
responsibility
monetary
to
the Union of
sion
absolve
in this
regard
As stated above their action
damages.
actions
Company’s
on the conclusion that it was
based
lost
employees’
for the
primarily responsible
which were
cited standard of
opportunities.
Given
above
wages
award, espe
we find no abuse
the Commission’s
review
injunc
since the Commissioners ordered affirmative
cially
existing problems.
tive relief to correct the
We affirm the Order of the Commonwealth Court.
C.J.,
NIX,
opinion.
files a dissenting
Justice,
NIX,
dissenting.
Chief
to
I
of this Court seeks
again
majority
dissent. Once
modern administrative law with the
strangle
spirit
of
and formalistic
of
style
of the more technical
trappings
by
associated with
common law. As stated
pleadings
early
Human
Pennsylvania
Mr. Justice Roberts
his dissent
Corp.,
v. U.S. Steel
458 Pa.
Relations Commission
(1974),
unrealistic approach
sterile and
“[t]his
of the Pennsylvania
results in a restrictive construction
may cripple
Human Relations Act which
Common-
efforts to correct the more subtle forms
discrim-
wealth’s
Id.,
J.,
(Roberts,
On or about to December in unlaw- engages alleges respondent Company ful are practices discriminatory employment sex, female respect employees, because transfer, hiring, assignment, overtime, seniority, salary, promotion, layoff. denial of training, It is further alleged that the Union concurs in respondent and aids and practices abets the respondent Com- pany. general
Unlike the allegation discrimination held insuf ficient by all members of this Court in Corp.,1 U.S. Steel *11 570, supra, 563, 912, 916, at 325 A.2d at the com plaint filed in this case the adequately put defendant on no tice that the Commission intended to conduct an investiga tion and hearing regarding sex discrimination against its female employees. The term “set forth the particulars” as Act, used in Section 9 of 27, 1955, the Act of October P.L. 744 9, amended, as 43 P.S. not should be read to mean § that a report required statistical original complaint. is in the
The
in
sufficiently alleged
this case
employer
engaged
in across-the-board discrimination
against
When,
female employees.
as the record amply
reflects,2 an
employer engages
such
sex
widespread
comparable
1. The
section
the
held
in Pa.
insufficient
Corp.,
Human Relations
v. U.S.
Commission
Steel
458 Pa.
325 A.2d
(1974),
read:
Respondent
past
present
has in
and
the
continues until
the
recruitment,
system
hiring,
time to maintain a
demotion,
training, employment, compensation, promotion,
job as-
transfer,
retention,
signment
placement,
referral,
layoff,
or
dismis-
sal, rehire,
retirement,
pensions,
and
and has otherwise discrimi-
past
nated
present
in the
and continues until the
time to discrimi-
terms,
regarding
privileges
employment
nate
conditions
and
sex,
origin.
because of
race and national
Id.,
562-63,
power initiate, receive, and and duty investigate “[t]o pass upon complaints unlawful charging 957(f). practices.” P.S. The eleven female employees who went to the Commission in February of thus reason to that their rights being believe were by vindicated the Commission. Certainly claimants such as those before this Court have an in interest freedom from discrimination in in employment, relief, back or pay monetary other public vindication of rights. their have inter- They also an est in redressing grievances through the administra- tive that agency was established for that purpose by legislature as an expert discrimination, the field of the full investigation benefits and hearing provided as by Act. Logan Co., v. Zimmerman at Brush supra 431, 102 at S.Ct.
For the above I reasons would hold that the original complaint filed sufficiently satisfied “particularity” requirement Section 9 rights of the individual complainants preserved were by the Com- mission. I would thus remand the action to the Commission for the award back or pay other relief for the monetary individual finding not inconsistent original complaint was valid.