Rose of Sharon Lodge v. Pa. Lab. R. Bd.

Citations: 729 A.2d 1278; 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2554; 1999 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 428

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; May 18, 1999; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Fraternal Order of Police, Rose of Sharon Lodge No. 3 (FOP) filed a petition for review regarding a June 6, 1998 Final Order from the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board), which dismissed the FOP's charge of unfair labor practice against the City of Sharon. The Board ruled that the City’s unilateral reduction of service requirements for promotional eligibility did not involve a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under Act 111. The FOP argued that the Board erred in its determination, asserting that changes in seniority requirements for promotions should be negotiated.

The Board established that the FOP was the collective bargaining representative for the City’s police officers and noted that prior collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) did not consistently address minimum service requirements for promotion. A 1986 arbitration award had previously mandated six years of service with the City for promotion eligibility, but this provision was omitted in subsequent agreements, including the one in effect in 1997. In 1990, the City unilaterally set a requirement of five years of service for promotion, which remained until January 1997, when the City opened applications for detective and juvenile officer positions to any officer in their fifth year.

On February 20, 1997, the FOP alleged that this unilateral change constituted unfair labor practices, violating the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA) for interfering with employees' rights and refusing to bargain collectively. A hearing was held, and the Hearing Examiner initially found the City had committed unfair labor practices. However, the City contested this ruling, claiming it merely adjusted substantive requirements rather than changing promotional procedures, which it argued fell within its managerial rights. The Board ultimately sided with the City, leading to the FOP's appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

The Board determined that the establishment of job qualifications falls under the employer's managerial prerogative and is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, as it is more closely related to the City's management interests than to employee conditions of employment. Consequently, the Board vacated the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that the City had violated its duty to bargain, dismissing the charge of unfair labor practices under Section 6.1(a) and (e) of the PLRA and Act 111. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) appealed, arguing that the Board erred by dismissing their charge related to the City's unilateral change in seniority qualifications for promotions, asserting that seniority is a proper subject for mandatory bargaining under Act 111. Act 111 allows police and fire personnel the right to collectively bargain concerning various employment terms, including compensation and working conditions. The FOP contended there are both explicitly bargainable subjects and broader, undefined terms and conditions of employment that are also subject to negotiation. The PLRA stipulates that an employer commits an unfair labor practice if they refuse to negotiate with employee representatives. The Court in Plumstead Township noted that while Act 111 does not explicitly reserve management rights, it does not eliminate all management decision-making related to police regulations essential for effective department functioning.

An issue qualifies as a managerial prerogative and is not a mandatory subject of bargaining if a managerial policy concern significantly outweighs its impact on employees. The Board should initially determine whether a subject is a managerial prerogative. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) argues that there is a strong connection between officers' duties and the use of seniority in promotions, which they claim outweighs the managerial interest of ensuring quality officers for promotion. However, this argument is refuted by the precedent set in *City of Erie v. Haas Memorial Lodge No. 7*, which established that the qualifications for police promotion in Third Class cities are not subject to mandatory bargaining under Act 111. The court emphasized that the Third Class City Code grants mayors the exclusive authority to appoint and promote police officers without limitations, and thus any restrictions proposed through arbitration contradict this legislative mandate. The court clarified that arbitrators cannot issue awards that fall outside the scope of Act 111. Additionally, in *Delaware County Lodge No. 27 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board*, it was noted that while issues may be presumptively bargainable if they relate to employee duties, they may still be deemed managerial prerogatives if managerial concerns significantly outweigh employee impacts. This principle applies even if the issues affect employee wages, hours, or working conditions.

Act 111 maintains some regulatory authority over police personnel within municipal management, particularly concerning essential operations. Townships can establish methods for selecting, directing, and evaluating personnel, which is vital for police efficiency. The Board has recognized its expertise in public employee labor relations and that its decisions should be afforded significant deference, especially regarding the balance of interests between employers and unions. In this case, the Board overturned the Hearing Examiner's ruling, concluding that the City was not required to negotiate changes to minimum promotion qualifications, as these pertain more to managerial prerogatives than to employee conditions of employment. The Board asserted that requiring negotiations over minimum qualifications would equate to bargaining over job requirements, which is not mandated under Act 111. The Board's finding that police officers with four years of experience could fulfill the responsibilities of elevated positions was deemed a decision rightfully made by the City. The Court aligned with the Board's conclusions, affirming the decision consistent with previous rulings. The Court's review was limited to potential constitutional violations, legal errors, or whether the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The argument from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) that employee seniority interests should outweigh the City’s qualification formulation was rejected, reinforcing the municipality's authority in personnel matters. The final order from the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board was affirmed on May 18, 1999.