Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

A.2d 1240 POLICE STATE PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania BOARD, RELATIONS LABOR PENNSYLVANIA Intervenor, Association, Troopers State STATE TROOPERS PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF ASSOCIATION, Intervenor. Police, Appellee

Pennsylvania State Board, Appellant. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Association, Pennsylvania Troopers Intervenor. State Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued May 25, 2002. Nov.

Decided Harrisburg, for Gary Lightman, M. Anthony Caputo, M. Association, Troopers intervenor. Pennsylvania State Crawford, Will, Harris- Lowrie Elizabeth James Jennifer Labor Relations Board. Pennsylvania burg, Sheehan, Jr., Harrisburg, for Fisher, M. Frank A. James Appellee. CASTILLE, NIGRO, CAPPY, ZAPPALA, C.J, and Before EAKIN, NEWMAN, JJ. SAYLOR

ORDER PER CURIAM. NOW, the Order day this 25th November

AND Upper hereby AFFIRMED. See the Commonwealth Court Township Board, v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations (2000). 753 A.2d 803 Justice a dissenting SAYLOR files statement. SAYLOR, dissenting.

Justice In per curiam affirming Order the decision of the Court, majority Commonwealth Upper relies on Twp. (2000), 753 A.2d 803 a that case addressed the of probationary employees to griev- seek ance arbitration under Act 111. present appeal, however, duty concerns the on Pennsylvania bargain State Police to Pennsylvania State regarding Police Association al- existing (as teration of terms and conditions past practice) discerned from of Association members. There- fore, agree I do not that Upper holding is control- Makefield’s ling. Moreover, believe, as I on of the standards governing judicial review of determinations of administrative agencies, that the decision of Pennsylvania Labor Rela- presently tions Board under is supported by review substan- tial law, evidence and in accordance with I respectfully dis- My reasoning sent. greater is set forth in detail below. The relevant facts are not in dispute. In the Com- Pennsylvania, (the monwealth of Pennsylvania State Police Police”) “State began providing pre-termination hearings be- panels fore review to probationary troopers facing employ- ment termination for poor performance. The State Police afforded the probationary troopers designated for dismissal any advance notice of witnesses that would be appearing against permitted (or them and representation by counsel another) presentation and responsive In evidence. following discussions between the State Police and the Penn- sylvania (the Troopers State “Association”), Association bargaining representative for troopers, the State Police also began providing pre-termination hearings disciplinary mat- conjunction ters. In with Troopers dismissals of David T. Burns and 1995, however, Scott C. Shade in the State Police attempted pre-termination eliminate the procedure, and the charge unfair labor by filing an responded Association (the “PLRB” Board Labor Relations with however, the “Board”). charge, hearing Prior to (the agreement Association reached and the State post-termi- providing Agreement”), and Shade “Burns accomplishing procedures for hearings specifying nation rights pertaining task, mutual reservation with required in was regarding whether disputes future such hearings.1 Despite pre-termination to eliminate order reservation, apply Police continued the State until 1998. Agreement, Burns Shade outlined May year, of that late correspondence transmitted E. Encin Trooper Mark Police informed June employment, from effective was that he dismissed Encin’s dismissal was indicating Trooper Although in which he was observed episode, upon hypoglycemic based medical treat- requiring of consciousness in an state altered ment, any type pre-termi- of provide did not the letter proba- provided hearing. Similarly, the State nation of his T. written notice tionary Trooper Gerald Devlin with notice. days after the date effective two dismissal basis for correspondence delineated the Again, although the (reckless of a vehi- operation motor this decision another), no it contained that resulted the death cle the Association pre-termination procedure. When mention of Police’s renewed efforts eliminate of the State learned charge, practice unfair labor it filed another hearing practice, of a term and condition asserting alteration unilateral part, agreement provided as follows: pertinent procedure for the review parties agree the use of the above final settlement Troopers ... ... Shade is a full and Burns and above. Both raised the case referenced and resolves all issues preju- precedent recognize is without and parties that this settlement statutory rights party. The of either and dice to the contractual right possesses any it Pennsylvania explicitly reserves State Police formerly proba- process used modify or the or discontinue either understanding express process, tionary Trooper review recognize Pennsylvania Troopers Association does State may challenge any unilateral acknowledge such and such change. 6(l)(a) 6(l)(e) employment in violation of Sections and (“PLRA”).2 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act PLRB-appointed A hearing examiner conducted hearings and a proposed issued decision and order. See Commonwealth, Troopers Ass’n v. Pa. State Order, Proposed PF-C-98-149-E, Decision and No. slip op. (PLRB 1999) May v. [hereinafter “PSTA State Police I”]. outset,

At hearing recognized examiner that an em ployer generally will be found to have committed unfair labor unilaterally when it a bargainable alters term of employment, compared condition to changing course in a subject matter to managerial prerogative that is not subject to bargaining. See id. at 4 (citing Plumstead v. Twp. PLRB, (Pa.Cmwlth.1998); 713 A.2d Frackville Bor (Pa.Cmwlth. ough Police Dep’t 701 A.2d 1997)). In distinguishing categories between these of deci sions, hearing procedural examiner viewed matters as closely more conditions, associated with bargainable terms and decisionmaking closely substantive aligned more with managerial prerogative. hearing in examiner voked the traditional rational relationship test in evaluating required subject nexus between the matter the decision involved appropriate category and the of decisionmaking. See I, PSTA State Police at 4. slip op. generally PLRB v. Dist., 494, 507, State College Sch.

(1975). evidence,

On review of hearing examiner found that the implementation, period over a substantial years, pre- termination hearings past practice part constituted on the 6(1) part, provides In relevant Section of the PLRA as follows:

(1) It shall be an unfair employer— labor for an with, (a) employes To interfere restrain or coerce in the exercise of rights guaranteed the act. (e) bargain collectively To to representatives refuse of his employes.... 1937, 1, 1168, 294, (¡25 amended, Act of June P.L. No. 43 P.S. 211.6(l)(a), (e)). below, §§ As further discussed these have sections subsuming bargainable been construed as unilateral alteration of a employment term and condition. changed Police that was when the was State I, PSTA v. at 4. In slip op. eliminated. See State to response Pipkin Pennsylva to the State Police’s citation v. Police, (1997), nia 693 A.2d 190 proposition no probationary troopers process that have due hearing to a discharge, hearing before examiner agreed, distinguished but Pipkin involving constitutional I, and not labor slip law. See PSTA v. State Police at 5. op. hearing pre-termination examiner viewed the substance, hearings as a procedure, opposed matter of particularly proceedings since such merely permitted proba themselves, tionary opportunity to defend but did infringe upon employed by the criteria the State Police making reason, dismissal decisions. See id. For this hearing examiner hearings concluded affordance closely was more probationary related ti-oopers’ interest in terms and conditions of than their to the State managerial prerogative Police’s employment quali establish Thus, fications. See id. he concluded that elimination of the hearing procedure was a subject matter to bargaining. By way remedy, hearing examiner recommended that the State Police be pre-termination hearings directed offer already dismissed, who had been refusing cease and desist from to negotiate with the Associa concerning tion the matter. See id. at 5-6.

Subsequently, the PLRB exceptions dismissed filed hearing State Police and rendered proposed examiner’s decision and order absolute. See State Troop Commonwealth, Order, ers Ass’n v. Pa. State Final PF-C-98-149-E, (PLRB 1999) No. slip op. Dec. [hereinaf ter “PSTA State Police PLRB opened analysis II”]. The by addressing the status of troopers under Act §§ 43 P.S. 217.1-217.7. The Board noted the Com not, monwealth Court had that Act determined 111 does itself, and of protections confer troopers, specific the absence of language the collective agreement controlling or other legislative contractual or re quirements. id. at (citing Township Sugarloaf (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), Bowling, in part aff'd (2000)). Pa. 759 A.2d 913 this part,

and vacated in however, provision PLRB in the regard, highlighted agreement between the State Police bargaining collective that covered Association to the effect “members” except specifically probationary troopers, include where terms II, op. Police at 3.3 The PLRB slip excluded. PSTA State among parties all to the unfair labor also noted the consensus probationary troopers that are members practice proceeding unit. id. of the Additionally, implication the PLRB criticized the to Township Sugarloaf Court’s decision Commonwealth scope outside that officers are the effect 111, observing disharmony of such decision with Act precedent, Board as well as that of this Court. longstanding dispute that the the Board did not the assertion While broad discretion to terminate possessed 205(f) of the Administrative provided Section 65(f), 71 P.S. the Board concluded Code not be from Act Ill’s probationary troopers need removed comply statutory ambit to with this directive. See PSTA v. II, analogy at 3-4. Board drew an slip op. State Police Teachers Local Philadelphia Board Educ. v. Federation (1975), which arose (Vahey), No. 3 346 A.2d 35 Act, §§ Public Relations 43 P.S. Employe under the 1101.101- case, district 1101.2301. In that this Court held that school may bargaining agreement in a to submit the agree arbitration, discharging a non-tenured propriety teacher of discretion on the district con despite legislative conferral . 106-07, at

cerning employées. of such See id. termination reasoning PLRB emphasized A.2d at 43. The Court’s was provision hearings the effect that the the teachers statutorily and did not restrict the district’s proscribed for dismissal.4 ability to establish the substantive criteria Additionally, bargaining agreement recognizes the the collective Asso- bargaining pur- representative for collective ciation as the "exclusive members,” being only exceptions poses for all State Police CBA, Commissioner, Art. I. Deputy "the Commissioners and cadets.” 97-98, (“The particular that a 4. See id. at 346 A.2d at 38 mere fact subject may by legislation it matter be covered does not remove from The PLRB next addressed the State Police’s citation to substantially hearing a manner similar to Pipkin exam- acknowledging iner’s assessment — do not constitutional employment, have a continued PLRB the nevertheless did not read the decision as address- ing, foreclosing, much less of enforcement terms employment. pointed conditions of their PLRB out application of relationship grounded the rational test is not in considerations, rather, task, constitutional but entailed the arising in labor setting, balancing employers’ law of managerial in controlling disputed interest term and the employer’s employees. effect of the actions on the See PSTA II, (“The slip State Police at 4-5 of op. absence constitution- al process protections probationary troopers due for does not preclude possibility that hearings may PTRP be a manda- tory subject PLRA”). of bargaining under Act 111 and the generally City Ellwood Police Wage Policy Unit v. (Pa.Cmwlth.1999); A.2d Plumstead Twp., 713 A.2d at 735. pre-termination

Based the character of proceedings and past practice implementation, the State Police’s the PLRB determined that the “constituted a term and condi- employment every tion of for probationary trooper hired Probationary Commonwealth since 1984. troopers facing consistently dismissals have been afforded the opportunity proceedings.” defend themselves dismissal PSTA State II, at 5. dispute While the Board did not the State possessed Police’s assertion that it broad discretion to termi- 205(f) provided nate in Section Code, it pre-termination Administrative concluded that hear- question wages, ... if it bears on the hours and [;] employment only prevents agreement conditions of ... [the Act] implementation any to and term which would be violation of or directive.”); any statutory inconsistent with Commonwealth v. State cf. Lodges the Fraternal Order Conference of 51, (1990) (explaining provision grievance that the arbitration as an alternative to court martial under the Administrative way Code “in no from authority detracts the Commissioner’s to estab- regulations police lish rules and to retain in the state or to grounds discharge”). set forth or authori- ings disrupt did not the Commissioner’s discretion opportunity to defend ty, merely but afforded the PLRB opportunity prior themselves to termination —an rationally to their terms and conditions found was related employment. rational rela- support for its

As further analogized PLRB decisions related tionship inquiry, the reasoning: promotions, obligation bargain no over the employer is under decision, yet making promotional

criteria it uses to be followed employer bargain procedures must over the filling position. Similarly, the Commonwealth is under duty bargain retaining over the criteria for or dismiss- no yet ing probationary troopers, bargain it must over the doing so. procedures be followed II, (citing Allegheny Police at 5 East School PSTA State ¶ Order, (1982); Dist., PPER Proposed Decision and 13060 ¶ Auth., Order, Final 29 PPER 29806 Twp. Harrison Water (1998)). regard in The Board summarized its conclusions as follows PTRP hear- hearing

The examiner’s determination the mandatory subject bargaining a is consistent ings are longstanding policy considering Board’s management objectives. For an issue to public employer’s managerial prerogative and thus not manda- be deemed tory subject bargaining, managerial policy must sub- stantially outweigh any impact issue will have on the above, performance police. duties of the As discussed managerial prerogative to establish the Commonwealth’s by is qualifications positions for unaffected procedures probation- for dismissal of over the complete con- ary troopers. The Commonwealth maintains in qualifications trol and criteria to be used over the probationary troopers. decision to retain dismiss in establishing qualifications interest for Commonwealth’s probationary troopers’ interest defend- and the positions compatible. proceedings are ing themselves dismissal II, Police at 5-6. v. State PSTA reversed, find- Court appeal, further the Commonwealth

On hearings pre-termination relationship no rational between ing condi- bargainable and terms and probationary troopers PLRB, Police v. Pennsylvania State tions. See (Pa.Cmwlth.2000). holding, of its court support dismissal of a Pipkin that of to the effect reiterated trooper trooper adjudication not an and the was protections right or the process not to due was entitled dismissal, see State Police appeal the emphasized A.2d at and the Administrative Code’s 205(f) upon conferral the State Police Commissioner Section probationary trooper, to dismiss a see id. The discretion however, not, Court did address the distinc- Commonwealth rights at by drawn the PLRB between the constitutional tion (here, arising under labor law Pipkin interests issue existing bargain concerning the modification not employment). conditions of it did terms that, Adminis- although PLRB’s consider the assessment conferral of discretion the State trative Code’s broad, to retention pertaining pre-termination statute does foreclose the procedures. guidance Upper also found

The Commonwealth Court A.2d Makefield, 753 at decided this Court after of the PLRB’s The Commonwealth Court issuance decision. restricting probationary troopers’ Upper read solely “at rights, light employees, of their status as will” by Con- bargaining agreement. conferred the collective those Act 111 comitantly, protections court that the of opined completed solely troopers probation- to who have their extend employment. Police v. ary period of See PLRB, at 95. that the Explaining 764 A.2d relevant troop- agreement upon probationary not confer did redress, conclud- any the Commonwealth Court ers avenue pre-termi- no vested ed that such have interest procedure. nation apparently While crediting the Board’s finding practice, of a past although characterizing practice as “sporadic,” the court also observed that the State Police had unilaterally past practice reserved the cease providing hearings, apparent those in an reference to the Burns and Agreement. Shade id. See

Appellate review of PLRB orders is circumscribed statutory directive that factual findings of Board are if binding supported by evidence, just substantial as are agency if they conclusions are in accordance with law. See 2 § 704. generally Borough PLRB, Pa.C.S. See of Lemstown 141, 7, 1240, (1999).5 558 Pa. 148 n. 735 A.2d 1243 n. 7 recognized, particular courts have with emphasis in arena, the labor that substantial deference is to be accorded to agency expertise. PLRB, Borough Nazareth v. 11, 5, 493, (1993) 16 n.& 626 A.2d 496 n. (emphasizing & 5 that “the PLRB is in position the best all resolve unfair labor practice (emphasis in original)); issues” Twp. South Park PLRB, (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (“It Police Ass’n v. 789 A.2d is well required settled this Court give great deference to the expertise PLRB.”); administrative Plumstead Twp., 713 A.2d at 734-35 (explaining & n. 16 the PLRB “possesses expertise administrative the area public employee labor great relations and ... ought deference given be the PLRB’s assessment of competing the often concerns relevant to the issue whether the conduct employer or a union constitutes refusal to meet mutual faith”) obligation to bargain good (quoting City Philadel phia 113, 120, 138 Pa.Cmwlth. (1991)).

Here, PLRB a longstanding past discerned giving bargainable rise to a Such term/condition. assessment, minimum, at a has substantial factual overtones and implicates agency expertise necessary deference. See Nazareth, Borough 534 Pa. at n. 16 & 626 A.2d at 496 & Although review is also available for constitutional violations and procedural irregularities process, the administrative see Pa.C.S. allegations present no such are in this case.

605 16; n. at 734-735 & 5; Twp., Plumstead n. cf. Union, AFL-CIO South Local Transit Amalgamated Auth., 473 N.W.2d 437 Mich. Transp. Mich. eastern or condition of a term (1991) (characterizing existence matter). the State Significantly, factual as a of as determination past practice challenge not does evidence, and the Common by substantial lacking support sporadic as characterizing Court, although wealth dispute significance, did to diffuse its effort apparent in an findings. The PLRB’s with the in accordance its existence of Burns and to allusion the effect Court’s Commonwealth consum agreement was since the unpersuasive, also is Shade pre-termination commencement long after the mated of both rights behalf reservations practice and contained concerning the existence dispute to their parties relation agreement I in full am practice. past constitu involving as distinguishing Pipkin reasoning PLRB’s entitlements, and contractual tional, statutory opposed speak 205(1) Administrative Code reconciling Section process, decision-making in the substantive ing to discretion non-determinative, prohibiting not as but noted, the Commonwealth procedure. As pre-termination to account materially lacking its failure reasoning is Court’s distinctions. for such substantial proba- status afforded question is the more difficult of this Court’s decision consequence as a

tionary troopers sum- Certainly Court’s the Commonwealth Upper Makefield. accurate, given but must be attention mary of the decision See, holding. its applying of a case in factual context McCann, 190, 195, 469 A.2d Pa. e.g., Commonwealth (1983) (“The as in all particular case] holding [a facts.”). noted, As of its cases, read in the context must be troop- ability probationary concerned the Upper concerns the entitlement grieve, appeal this ers to whereas bargain on behalf member unit to a collective distinction Particularly light of this substantial troopers. troopers PLRB’s decision accord and the employment, conditions of terms and bargainable benefit inquiry at hand by deserves further consideration beyond Court citation Upper mere Makefield. groundwork consideration, As for such I impor- believe it is that, tant to bear in mind in Upper Makefield, this Court’s reasoning was prior constrained expressions concerning Act 111. significantly, Most previously the Court had estab- that Act employees lished 111 possessed are with an entitle- arbitration, ment to via with resulting awards substan- grieve tially judicial insulated from review via of a narrow certiorari standard. See State Police v. Penn- sylvania (Betancourt), State Troopers 66, 76-78, Ass’n 540 Pa. (1995). 83, 88-89 applied As troop- ers, however, holding this was in tension with various statuto- ry provisions affording substantial and largely inviolable def- erence to the judgment public See, sound employers. e.g., Upper Makefield, 562 Pa. at 753 A.2d at (citing 806-07 53 812); 65(f). § P.S. § P.S. See generally Township of Sugarloaf 722 A.2d at 248-49. it apparent While is not from decision, the face the the Upper Court was Makefield therefore bound deny full the benefit of Act 111 precisely previously because the Court had read Act 111 broadly to subsume a statutory entitlement to an grievance insulated procedure arbitration simply could not be made to probationary available troopers.6 decision, I participate did not in the pre-dated my Betancourt it Court, tenure on the and would not have reached the same conclusion. Act Ill’s insulated expressly for arbitration was crafted in arising context of bargaining interest arbitration out impasse of a and public made available to employer bargaining and collective §§ unit. See 43 P.S. 217.4-217.7. specific provi- Act 111 contains no arbitration, pertaining sion grievance to individual good and reason legislative purposes exists ances, differentiate impasses griev- related to and bargaining impasses since implicate a far more immediate and potential (the direct for destabilization in the workforce seminal con- 111) cern of Act than does the grievances. resolution of individual generally Philadelphia 553-54, Fire Ass’n v. Officers (1977) (explaining A.2d prevent that Act strikes police personnel, and provides fire for collective and com- pulsory binding impasse). arbitration in the event light of an distinction, general Act 111's isolated and reference to settlement of grievances disputes enactment, or in accordance with the terms of the 217.1, 43 P.S. could have been grievance read as an allusion to necessary crafting exception In the course of to Betanc- rule, Upper ourt’s Court relied the at-will probationary employees; statutory status of conferrals of dismissals; and a conclusion that employer deference at statutory officer issue failed to establish a Makefield, contractual entitlement. See 562 Pa. at Upper 118-20, employees 753 A.2d at 807. The at-will status of context, however, far, only the labor can be taken so since this applies employees marketplace characterization to most in the prior rights by bargain- to the conferral of virtue of collective therefore, ing, represents only starting point assessment of entitlements gained conferred or labor cases. noted, previously statutory grant discretion the State Police relation to of probationary the retention prohibit implementation does not of procedures Here, that are not supra. inconsistent with its exercise. See decision, record, PLRB supported rendered a in the pre-termination practices were such that did they legislatively interfere or conflict with protected discretion. Finally, Upper distinguishable is present from the Makefield case in that PLRB’s decision under review here estab- lishes, fact, as a matter of past practice part a on of forms predicate bargainable which for a term and condition. The sole basis in Upper for the Makefield through established process. the Act 111 Alter- natively, utilizing the clause also could have been read as the terms grievances disputes synonymously to refer to differences between employer

the collective unit bargaining, particularly and the in as the pertinent provision “right bargain,” speaks righls bears the title “through organizations representatives exercised labor desig- or other by fifty percent nated or policemen,” more of such and in all other respects rights is concerned with the and interests of the unit. See 43 § P.S. 217.1. participate Upper I did and remain of the belief that Makefield given decision represented prevailing was that Betancourt correct — challenge law presented, exception to which no was the need to craft an light to its mandate arose in concerning the conflict with enactments employer probationary discretion in the policemen. retention I however, joined Upper Makefield, would not have had I foreseen that it interpreted broadly preclude would be policemen so as to a class of benefiting from from the employment terms and conditions of their as factfinding discerned the PLRB in its capacity expertise. its administrative 608 arbitra- claim to an to such officer’s entitlement

probationary (as Be- grievance arbitration required tion was that Act 111 held). tancourt above, say did not in Upper what the Court light expressed reasoning. as its perhaps important began to consider whether

Although the Court 111, purposes Upper of Act see “policemen” were expressly it not at 753 A.2d at did Makefield, 562 Pa. probation did not state that inquiry. answer this The Court Moreover, Act 111. ary utterly excluded from troopers are bargainable whether did not consider decide Court employees respect with terms and conditions practice, they generally can for past can be derived from in the union context. See majority employees the vast County Employees Prison County Allegheny Allegheny (1977) (ex Union, 27, 34, 852 Indep. “sepa past practice may be used establish plaining cannot condition of which be rate enforceable agreement”); see express language from the of the derived (discussing past practices Ellwood 731 A.2d at 672 City, also mandatory duty bargain employer’s context of an Am. v. subject); Steelworkers Warrior & over United cf. 1347, 1352, Co., 581-82, Navigation U.S. S.Ct. Gulf (1960) common (observing that “the industrial L.Ed.2d 1409 industry shop part and the law-the —is it”). although expressed bargaining agreement Make- questions Upper were not resolved Since these present opportunity I to answer them. field, would take the Certainly, coverage expressly Act Ill’s is made available employed by the Common- unqualified “policemen” basis to 217.1. Its political or a subdivision. See P.S. wealth proba- to facially therefore available general protections are as through representatives, their authorized tionary troopers, duty assignments to and are troopers subject police are these Act; moreover, plain meaning this inter- by not excluded by the administra- strongly advocated pretation As oversight responsibility. with Act 111 agency vested tive scope Act noted, exception form of to Ill’s the need for some probationary troopers in to arose from Betancourt’s relation (since special- a interpretation the statute Betancourt made ly grievance insulated form of arbitration available to Act application of in favor employees), such probationary troopers express statutory would conflict with situation, In unique mandates extrinsic to Act 111. I permitting should restrain itself from believe the Court implication persons even the that it has removed a class of by entirely Act 111 facially protections covered from its mere- ly any inconsistency to avoid application.7 Betancourt’s Rather, appropriate exception it is to craft the essential to narrowly, Betancourt’s to necessary objective rule achieve the consequences implicated without the collateral by the Court’s present per curiam Order. summary, legal issue this case can be framed as probationary

whether troopers, who are members the As- sociation, deprived should be of the benefit of such terms/con- protections ditions expressly as are made po- available all licemen under Act are inconsistent with other pertinent statutory provisions. IAs would this ques- answer negative, tion in I would reverse the order of the Com- that, highlights deprive The PLRB order to express protections, of Act necessary Ill’s effectively it would be (hem unit; exclude from the legislation’s since the stated terms body, inure in favor of the long interests of the collective Association, troopers as the are members of the Act 11l's benefits flow Indeed, parties agree them. all probationary to this case See, troopers should not be e.g., excluded from the Association. Brief of Appellee (“The Commonwealth of at 13 [applying Upper Commonwealth Court's decision does not Makefield] deprive probationary employees ... to have the terms and employment, conditions of their for the duration of the period, through bargaining process.”). determined Notably, ees, if troopers, undeniably public employ- who are 111, they are said to fall outside facially the ambit of Act would be express covered Employe terms of the Public Relations Act (PERA), public employee “any which defines a employed individual by public employer but employes shall not include ... those Since, however, covered 1101.301(2). [Act under 43 P.S. 111].” PERA only right collectively bargain, confers not but also the entitlement circumstances, 1101.701, §§ to strike under certain see 43 P.S. 1101.1003, any category direct would be purposes limiting inimical to Act Ill's the recourse available to police personnel impasse essential and fire situations. PLRB’s

monwealth Court and reinstate the determination practice by in an unfair labor engaged the State probation- unilaterally eliminating a term condition ary troopers’ employment. A.2d 1249 Pennsylvania, Appellee v.

COMMONWEALTH HESS, Jody Appellant. Lee Supreme Pennsylvania. Court May 2002.

Submitted Nov. Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Nov 25, 2002

Citation: 810 A.2d 1240

Docket Number: Appeal 162, 163 MAP 2001

Court Abbreviation: Pa.