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.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BALD EAGLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT (07/13/79)

decided: July 13, 1979.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, APPELLANT
v.
BALD EAGLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County in case of Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Bald Eagle Area School District, No. 1977-1945.

COUNSEL

Donald A. Wallace, with him James L. Crawford, for appellant.

John R. Miller, Jr., with him Miller, Kistler & Campbell, for appellee, Bald Eagle Area School District.

William A. Hebe, with him Spencer, Gleason & Hebe, for appellee, Bald Eagle Area Education Association.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer, Blatt, DiSalle, Craig and MacPhail. Judges Wilkinson, Jr. and Rogers did not participate. Opinion by President Judge Bowman. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Craig. Judges Blatt and DiSalle join in this dissent.

Author: Bowman

[ 44 Pa. Commw. Page 256]

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County which reversed a Board order determining that the Bald Eagle Area School District (Employer) committed an unfair labor practice when it refused to submit to arbitration a grievance filed by the Bald Eagle Area Education Association (Union). We affirm the order of the lower court.

Proceedings before the Board were initiated by a charge filed by the Union, which averred that the Employer's refusal to process a grievance "valid on its face" violated Sections 803 and 1201(a)(1) and (5) of the Public Employe Relations Act (Act 195), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. ยงยง 1101.803, .1201(a)(1), (5). The grievance underlying the asserted unfair labor charge recited several provisions of the agreement between the Employer and the Union which had allegedly been violated and the relief sought, i.e., "[a]ll members of the bargaining unit shall be paid all money due and owing plus the interest as provided by Pennsylvania School Code."

The money plus interest sought equals the difference between compensation for the 180 days of pupil instruction established by the school calendar and for the 179 days of service for which grieving Union members were paid. The one day variance reflects a one day strike by most Union members, which occurred in

[ 44 Pa. Commw. Page 257]

    mid-September, after the school year had begun. Those Union members who did report for work on the day in issue were paid for their services. After the strike, the Employer and Union negotiated and signed the collective bargaining agreement which governed the employment relationship for the school year, including those days of September which preceded the work stoppage. Of particular significance here is Article VI of the collective bargaining agreement which states:

TEACHER WORK YEAR

A. School Work ...


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.