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.

RICHLAND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/26/79)

decided: June 26, 1979.

RICHLAND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County in case of Richland Education Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and Richland School District, No. 1977-3804.

COUNSEL

William K. Eckel, for appellant.

Raymond W. Cromer, with him James L. Crawford, and Larry J. Rappoport, for appellee, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

Ralph F. Kraft, with him Kraft & Rizzo, for appellee, Richland School District.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 551]

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County which affirmed a final order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board), dismissing the charge of an unfair labor practice. The appellant had charged the Richland School District (District), with an unfair labor practice for refusing to arbitrate a grievance in violation of Section 1201(a)(1)(5) of the Public Employe Relations Act (Act), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. § 1101.1201(a)(1)(5). The Board found that the member of appellant's association, a temporary substitute teacher, whose wage dispute constituted the basis for the grievance was not a member of a bargaining unit covered by the contract. We affirm.

On May 1, 1976, the regular Spanish teacher of the District suffered a serious accident. A substitute was employed on a day to day basis at $34.00 per day to serve until the regular teacher returned. This substitute is variously characterized as a "day to day substitute" or a "temporary substitute." In any event, he was not a "regular substitute." Appellant filed a grievance alleging this substitute teacher was not receiving the salary required by the collective bargaining agreement.

The District declined to process the grievance on the grounds that the employee was not a member of a bargaining unit covered by the contract.

Thus, the facts are not in dispute. The issue is whether the employee is within a bargaining unit covered by the contract. The Board broke this into two questions: (1) Which bargaining units are covered by the contract; and, (2) is the aggrieved employee a member of a bargaining unit that is covered.

The issue for resolution before us is whether this is a proper issue to be resolved by the Board or must

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 552]

    it be resolved by an arbitrator. The answer is perfectly simple and straightforward -- it is ...


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.