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.

BOROUGH NEW CUMBERLAND v. POLICE EMPLOYEES BOROUGH NEW CUMBERLAND AND FRATERNAL ORDER POLICE (05/20/80)

decided: May 20, 1980.

BOROUGH OF NEW CUMBERLAND, APPELLANT
v.
POLICE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOROUGH OF NEW CUMBERLAND AND FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CONFERENCE OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE LODGES, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in case of Borough of New Cumberland v. Police Employees of the Borough of New Cumberland and Fraternal Order of Police, Conference of Pennsylvania State Police Lodges, No. 56, Equity 1978.

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Beckley, with him James P. Cullen, Beckley & Madden, for appellant.

P. Richard Wagner, with him Gary M. Lightman, of Mancke & Lightman, for appellees.

President Judge Crumlish and Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, Blatt, Craig and Williams, Jr. Judge MacPhail did not participate. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.

Author: Williams

[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 436]

This appeal arises from an action in equity by the Borough of New Cumberland, seeking mainly to compel the collective bargaining representative of certain police personnel to continue bargaining negotiations and to enjoin the representative from resorting to binding arbitration under Section 4(a) of Act 111.*fn1 The lower court, the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, dismissed the complaint in equity for lack of jurisdiction, and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. It is from that order that the Borough has appealed to this Court.

[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 437]

In 1975 the Borough of New Cumberland recognized an organization called "The Police Employees of the Borough of New Cumberland" (Police) as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for certain police personnel. Pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement then in force, the parties in June 1978 commenced negotiations to modify certain terms of that agreement.

About June 8, 1978 Police submitted certain proposed terms to the Borough. After the Borough responded with counter-proposals, the parties met in a bargaining session on September 7, 1978. That session produced agreement on many points, but no settlement was reached as to certain other issues, including insurance and pay for "court time".

The very next day, September 8, 1978, Police declared that it deemed further negotiations fruitless and that an impasse had been reached. Police also announced their intent to seek binding arbitration under Act 111. In response, the Borough on September 13, 1978 filed unfair labor practice charges with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, charging Police with refusal to bargain in good faith. On September 19th, the Board determined that the Borough's charges did not state a case of unfair labor practices and refused to issue a complaint.

On October 3, 1978 the parties held a second bargaining session, which produced no settlement of the disputed economic issues. Indeed, out of that session came charges by the Borough that counsel for Police had threatened to use his role with the union for the Pennsylvania State Police to bring about improper pressures from that organization.

On November 2, 1978 the Borough filed a complaint in equity naming as defendants the "Police Employees of the Borough of New Cumberland" and the union for ...


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.