Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County in case of In the Matter of the Employees of Erie County Vocational Technical School, No. 4735-A-1978, Case No. PERA-R-10, 826-W.
James L. Crawford, with him Larry J. Rappoport, Anthony C. Busillo and Mary Teresa Gavigan, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Donald C. Buseck, Quinn, Gent, Buseck & Leemhuis, Inc., for appellee.
Anthony J. Molloy, Jr., Sagot & Jennings, for Erie County Vo-Tech Federation, intervenor.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, Blatt, Craig and Williams, Jr. Judge MacPhail did not participate. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 390]
Before us are the consolidated cross-appeals of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (board) and the Erie County Area Vocational-Technical School (employer) from a final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County affirming in part and reversing in part a board order designating certain non-professional employees to be included within a bargaining unit to be represented by the Erie County Vo-Tech Federation, Local 1589, American Federation of Teachers (federation).
The board's June 8, 1978 nisi order certified the federation as the exclusive representative of an employee unit to include full-time and regular part-time maintenance, security, clerical, cafeteria aide, library aide and vocational evaluator aid employees.
On June 19, 1978, the employer filed exceptions to the board's nisi order, contesting inclusion in the unit of federally funded employees who worked in a variety of the above enumerated positions, three security men and the support personnel -- clericals, aides and maintenance -- who worked in the employer's adult education program. By order dated November 6, 1978, the board dismissed the employer's exceptions and entered a final order of certification.
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 391]
On appeal by employer to the court of common pleas, Judge McClelland affirmed the board's order including the CETA employees and the adult education support personnel, and modified the board's order to exclude from the bargaining unit those security/maintenance employees who he found were "guards" under Section 604(3) of the Public Employee Relations Act (Act), 43 P.S. § 1101.604.*fn1 The parties now appeal the court's decision.
First, the board contends that the lower court, in excluding the security/maintenance employees from the unit, erred in finding that those employees were "guards" under Section 604 of the Act, which provides in part that:
The board shall determine the appropriateness of a unit which shall be the public employer unit or a subdivision thereof. In determining the ...