Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PHILADELPHIA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION v. LABRUM (07/31/64)

July 31, 1964

PHILADELPHIA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
v.
LABRUM, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 288, Jan. T., 1964, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1964, No. 293, in case of Philadelphia Teachers' Association, Marion L. Steet, Margit L. Graham et al. v. J. Harry LaBrum, Dr. F. Bruce Baldwin, Frederic H. Barth et al. Judgment reversed; reargument refused August 28, 1964.

COUNSEL

Joseph W. Marshall, for appellants.

Peter Hearn, with him Pepper, Hamilton and Scheetz, for appellees.

Albert B. Gerber, for Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local No. 3, A.F.T., AFL-CIO, under Rule 65.

Daniel B. Pierson, V, and Lewis F. Adler, for Pennsylvania State Education Association, under Rule 65.

Before Bell, C.j., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Cohen

[ 415 Pa. Page 213]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN

We here determine whether a school board's refusal to participate in the designation of an exclusive collective bargaining representative for the teachers it employs is a "grievance or controversy" within the meaning of the public employes anti-strike Act, and thus entitles those teachers to the convening of a grievance panel under the Act.

The Philadelphia Teachers' Association (Association) on behalf of its members, Philadelphia school teachers, requested appellant, Philadelphia Board of Education (Board), to join with it in the designation of an exclusive teachers' representative*fn1 to speak for all professional employees in the Philadelphia School District. The Board refused to honor this request. The Association, alleging that this refusal gave rise to a grievance within the provisions of the public employes

[ 415 Pa. Page 214]

    anti-strike Act*fn2 (Anti-Strike Act), then requested the Board to convene a panel*fn3 as provided in the Act, to consider this grievance. The Board refused to convene the panel stating that the matter of an exclusive teachers' representative was a means of transmitting a grievance rather than a grievance itself.

Appellees, the Association and certain of its members, thereupon commenced the instant action in mandamus to compel the Board to convene a panel in accordance with the Act. The court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.