Berks/Lehigh Valley ColLege Faculty Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

Citations: 763 A.2d 548; 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3065; 2000 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 696

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; December 3, 2000; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Berks/Lehigh Valley College Faculty Association (Association) filed a petition for review against the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) regarding a September 22, 1999 order that dismissed their petition for representation as the bargaining representative for professional employees at Berks/Lehigh Valley College (BLVC). The Association contended that the Board wrongly concluded that the proposed bargaining unit lacked a distinct community of interest from other professional employees at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), thus failing to meet the criteria for an appropriate bargaining unit under the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA). 

Prior to July 1, 1997, Penn State's Berks and Allentown campuses were part of the Commonwealth Educational System (CES), aimed at preparing students for baccalaureate programs at Penn State's University Park campus. After the CES was abolished and the campuses merged into BLVC, the Association claimed that over 30% of the faculty wished for representation. The Board initially scheduled a hearing after the Association filed its petition in December 1997, naming both BLVC and Penn State as joint employers.

However, Penn State objected, asserting that it was not a joint employer and that the bargaining unit should not be limited to BLVC faculty. After a hearing where the Association amended its petition to exclude BLVC as an employer, the Hearing Examiner concluded that a bargaining unit limited to BLVC faculty was inappropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 604(1) of PERA, which requires an identifiable community of interest among public employees and considers the potential for over-fragmentation. The Board's dismissal of the Association's exceptions and the Hearing Examiner's order was ultimately affirmed.

The Hearing Examiner concluded that all Penn State faculty, including those at BLVC, perform similar roles in teaching, research, and community service, and enjoy the same benefits. While BLVC has some autonomy in developing employment policies due to its four-year degree programs, it remains under the broader policies of Penn State, which maintains significant control over all its colleges, including BLVC. The Hearing Examiner noted that the proposed bargaining unit for BLVC faculty was inappropriate due to over-fragmentation, as many conditions and policies affecting faculty across the University are shared. Following the Hearing Examiner's ruling, the Association was given twenty days to amend its petition or withdraw it but did neither. Consequently, a proposed dismissal order was filed, which the Board later affirmed, citing substantial evidence supporting the Hearing Examiner's findings. The Board rejected the Association's argument that prior case law was applicable, stating that the petitioned-for unit lacked a distinct community of interest. The Association subsequently appealed, claiming the Board erred in its determination and failed to make necessary findings regarding BLVC's operational autonomy. The Court's review focuses on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Board's findings and the reasonableness of its legal conclusions, deferring to the Board's expertise in public labor relations.

The Association claims the Board improperly maintained its “broad-based bargaining unit policy” and misinterpreted appellate precedent, asserting inconsistencies with NLRB decisions regarding unit determinations for multilocation employers. The Association contends that the Board's findings lack substantial evidence and do not accurately reflect the uncontroverted record evidence. However, the Court disagrees, noting that the Board fully adopted the Hearing Examiner’s findings, which included adequate references to supporting evidence.

The Association's primary concern is that the Board did not sufficiently assess the autonomy of BLVC, arguing that such autonomy necessitates certifying a separate BLVC faculty unit. The Hearing Examiner addressed this by specifying in Findings of Fact Nos. 7-9 the degree of autonomy BLVC exercises, highlighting its development of strategic plans, establishment of a faculty senate, and tenure review process. Despite recognizing unique elements of the faculty employment relationship at BLVC, the Board maintained that the essential findings pertained to whether the proposed unit had a distinct community of interest and whether certification would lead to over-fragmentation.

In determining community of interest, the Board referenced the factors outlined in Fraternal Order of Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, which includes aspects such as job type, working conditions, pay, and grievance procedures. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 10-15 indicated that BLVC faculty share a community of interest with other Penn State faculty. Specifically, the Board noted that all Penn State faculty, including those at BLVC, are governed by consistent personnel policies and benefits, encompassing various employment conditions and protections.

The Board determined that Penn State has a faculty senate representing faculty from all colleges, including BLVC, and that the University Park faculty senate and provost must approve academic degree programs for each college. Penn State is responsible for approving new building constructions, allocating operating expenses, coordinating enrollments, prescribing core curriculum, and setting merit increase guidelines for all colleges. The provost also reviews budgets to ensure revenues meet expenses and approves sabbatical leaves. The Court concluded that the 200 faculty members at BLVC share a community of interest with the other 5,400 faculty members due to their common engagement in teaching, research, and service, despite BLVC's operational autonomy. The Board's finding of no separate community of interest justifying the Association's certification as a separate bargaining unit is supported by substantial evidence and aligns with applicable law. The Association argued that the Board did not adhere to relevant appellate precedents, citing cases where different employee groups lacked a community of interest. However, the Board's findings indicated that BLVC faculty perform similar functions and are subject to the same policies and benefits as other Penn State faculty, distinguishing this case from prior decisions. The Association contended that job function similarity alone does not establish a community of interest, but the Court found the factual context here sufficiently supported the Board's conclusions.

The Court clarified that in APSCUF, non-faculty administrators lacked a shared community of interest with faculty administrators due to significant differences in job requirements and rights. In contrast, BLVC faculty at Penn State share similar job requirements and rights with faculty across other colleges, making the Association's reliance on APSCUF inappropriate. The Court also outlined the distinction made in Capitol Police, where the Board permitted separate bargaining units for Capitol Police officers due to their lack of supervisory authority over officers from other agencies and the unique policies of each agency. Unlike the situation with Capitol Police, Penn State maintains supervisory authority and consistent policies for all 5,600 faculty members, including those at BLVC. The Fraternal Order of Police case further illustrated differences in job functions and agency oversight, differentiating enforcement officers from licensing analysts. The Supreme Court emphasized that identifiable community of interest is evaluated based on various factors, including job type, educational requirements, and working conditions. The Board determined that all Penn State faculty share such a community of interest, thus rejecting the Association's argument for a change in bargaining unit policy based on Capitol Police and Fraternal Order of Police, as those cases pertained to different legal frameworks (Act 111) not applicable to the current situation under PERA's Section 604(1).

In the case involving the Fraternal Order of Police, the court outlined that the employees from different Commonwealth agencies, governed by PERA instead of Act 111, lacked a community of interest due to differing policies and lack of supervisory authority between agencies. Consequently, the court concluded that the effects of over-fragmentation were irrelevant. In contrast, the Board recognized a shared community of interest among all 5,600 Penn State faculty members, including 200 at BLVC, and duly considered the effects of over-fragmentation as mandated by Section 604(l)(ii) of PERA.

The Association's argument that the Board's decision contradicts established NLRB precedent was rejected. The NLRB's general rule regarding single-plant units does not apply here, as Section 604(1) of PERA specifically requires consideration of over-fragmentation, a stipulation absent from the NLRA. The court affirmed the Board's authority to interpret state law without being bound by federal decisions.

Moreover, distinctions were drawn from previous cases such as APSCUF and Fraternal Order of Police, where significant differences in job functions and requirements negated a shared community of interest among various employee groups. Unlike those cases, the BLVC faculty did not exhibit differences from other Penn State faculty, making the Community College of Philadelphia case inapplicable. The Board's decision was ultimately upheld, affirming its order issued on September 22, 1999.