Original jurisdiction in the case of Teamsters Local Union No. 77, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, Defendant.
Howard J. Casper, with him Casper & Muller, for plaintiff.
Francis A. Zulli, for defendant.
Carmen P. Belefonte, with him Kassab, Cherry & Archbold, for intervening defendant.
Judge Rogers, sitting as hearing judge.
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 169]
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Teamsters Local Union No. 77, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 170]
Helpers of America, has filed its Complaint in Equity against the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board seeking a preliminary and permanent order directing the Board to strike from a list of names of arbitrators in a certain matter those of Joseph Brandschain, G. Allan Dash, Jr. and Eli Rock and to substitute others in their stead. Since the matter in question is a dispute involving the guards at the Broadmeadows Prison, Delaware County, the County Board of Prison Inspectors was allowed intervention as a defendant, without objection. We have conducted a hearing upon the plaintiff's motion for preliminary relief.
The complaint and proofs show that after the Board submitted the names of Messrs. Brandschain, Dash and Rock, the plaintiff sought their removal and the Board refused. The plaintiff's reason for seeking the removal of Mr. Brandschain is his representation as lawyer of Sears Roebuck and Co. in a matter in which its adversary is another Local Union affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, represented by the plaintiff's counsel here. The removal of Messrs. Dash and Rock is sought because they allegedly refuse to act as arbitrators in matters in which plaintiff's counsel are engaged as the result of latters' action in seeking the removal of one of them as an arbitrator in another case.
We refuse the motion for preliminary relief for several reasons:
(1) As to Mr. Brandschain, there is no proof of any reason why he should be prejudiced against plaintiff, much less a showing of actual prejudice. His representation of an employer in a case against or dispute with a different Local represented by plaintiff's counsel, provides no reason why he cannot act impartially as an arbitrator in this case. The trial of lawsuits before lawyer-arbitrators, an absolute essential to the viability of our judicial system, is based on the recognition
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 171]
that a lawyer, as well as a judge, can subordinate his personal feelings to ...