Pennsylvania State Park Officers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
34 A.L.R. 6th 735, 854 A.2d 674, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2430 (2004)
Rule of Law:
Under Act 111 and the PLRA, the 'status quo' that an employer must maintain during a collective bargaining agreement hiatus freezes wages at the rate in effect at the expiration of the agreement, and does not require the continuation of automatic longevity wage increases.
Facts:
- The Pennsylvania State Park Officers Association (PSPOA) was the exclusive bargaining agent for Pennsylvania State Park Officers employed by the Commonwealth.
- The Capitol Police Lodge 85, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), was the exclusive bargaining agent for Pennsylvania Capitol/Airport Police Officers employed by the Commonwealth.
- PSPOA had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective June 11, 2001, through June 30, 2003, and FOP had a CBA effective July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2003, both providing for automatic step or longevity wage increases.
- Both CBAs contained identical provisions regarding health benefits, acknowledging that the jointly administered Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund (PEBTF) had sole discretion to determine health insurance and benefits.
- PSPOA began bargaining for a successor agreement on May 28, 2002, and requested arbitration on November 18, 2002, after negotiations were unsuccessful.
- FOP began bargaining on November 25, 2002, and requested arbitration on March 10, 2003, also after unsuccessful negotiations.
- Both collective bargaining agreements expired on June 30, 2003, without successor agreements in place, and arbitration had not yet commenced.
- On July 24, 2003, Robert S. Barnett, Secretary of Administration for the Commonwealth, issued written notifications to both Complainants stating that the Commonwealth would not process any salary increases, including increments and longevity increases, to maintain the status quo, and that the PEBTF had passed a resolution changing health and medical benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pennsylvania State Park Officers Association (PSPOA) and the Capitol Police Lodge 85, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) filed a charge of unfair labor practices with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) against the Commonwealth.
- The Secretary of the Board reviewed the allegations and declined to issue an unfair labor practice complaint.
- Complainants filed exceptions to the Secretary’s decision, alleging additional facts.
- The Board affirmed the Secretary’s decision not to issue a complaint and dismissed Complainants’ exceptions.
- Complainants appealed the Board's decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public employer commit an unfair labor practice under Act 111 and the PLRA by unilaterally discontinuing automatic longevity wage increases for police officers and firefighters after a collective bargaining agreement expires and before a successor agreement is reached?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Leavitt
No, a public employer does not commit an unfair labor practice by discontinuing automatic longevity wage increases after a collective bargaining agreement expires and before a successor is reached. The court affirmed the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board's decision, holding that the 'status quo' during a contract hiatus, as established in Fairview School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, means freezing wages at the level existing at the moment the collective bargaining agreement expired. To require continuation of automatic wage escalators would alter the existing relationship, give employees an unfair bargaining advantage, and disrupt good-faith negotiations, which aligns with the policy goals of Act 111. The court distinguished New Castle Area School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, noting it involved a separate agreement to freeze wages and disparate treatment, neither of which was present here. Furthermore, the court rejected the 'past practice' argument, citing the broad integration clauses in the expired agreements, which preclude incorporating unwritten terms. The court also found no evidence of anti-union animus or discrimination under Section 6(1)(c) of the PLRA, noting that the timing of the Commonwealth's actions was innocuous and its positions regarding wages and PEBTF-managed health benefits were legally consistent, given the PEBTF's independent authority.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on the meaning of 'status quo' in public sector labor disputes under Act 111 in Pennsylvania, specifically regarding automatic wage increases during the period between collective bargaining agreements. By holding that wages are frozen at expiration, the court aims to ensure a neutral bargaining environment, preventing either party from gaining an unfair advantage through automatic changes to compensation. The decision underscores the unique budgetary considerations for public employers and limits the use of 'past practice' arguments when agreements contain strong integration clauses. Future litigants will need to explicitly negotiate terms for 'gap' periods if they wish for automatic increases to continue, making the negotiation of successor agreements more critical.
