Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in case of In the Matter of the Employes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (13 State Colleges and Indiana University of Pennsylvania) PERA-U-7296-C.
Robert W. Barton, with him Killian & Gephart, for petitioner.
Thomas W. Lane and William D. Dade, with them John D. Thrush; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; James L. Crawford ; and Forest N. Myers, for respondents.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers, Blatt and DiSalle. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 240]
The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties/Pennsylvania Association for Higher Education (APSCUF) appeals the determination of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) that State College and University Administrators (SCUA) are not included in the bargaining unit (Unit II) for which APSCUF has been certified to represent. Unit II presently consists of only those college and university administrators who are also faculty members of the state university system but APSCUF would like to include as part of Unit II those administrators who are not faculty members, commonly referred to as SCUA.
This action arises out of a proceeding before the PLRB initiated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) to clarify the composition of the unit for which APSCUF had previously been certified. APSCUF argued before the PLRB that Unit II had been originally intended to represent all persons performing administrative functions whether the person had faculty or non-faculty status or, in the alternative, Unit II should be expanded to include all persons who perform similar functions. PLRB held that Unit II had been certified to represent only faculty administrators
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 241]
and that "administrators without faculty status do not share a 'community of interest' with administrators with faculty status." The instant appeal followed.
In a case such as this, "we are limited in our review as to a determination of whether the findings of the Board are supported by substantial and legally credible evidence and whether its conclusions based on the facts are reasonable and not capricious, arbitrary or illegal." Western Psychiatric Institution and Clinic v. Commonwealth, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 204, 211, 330 A.2d 257, 261 (1974).
As to PLRB's holding that Unit II had been intended to include only faculty members, it will suffice to say that there was overwhelming evidence to support that conclusion. All witnesses, including those of APSCUF, testified to that effect. We affirm the PLRB as to that issue.
We also affirm the PLRB's holding that Unit II should not be expanded to include administrators who are not faculty members because they do not share an identifiable community of interest with administrators who are faculty members.
Pursuant to Section 604 of the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, ...