Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County in the case of Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Eastern Lancaster County School District and Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Eastern Lancaster County Education Association, Trust Book No. 45, Page 190, and in the case of Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Eastern Lancaster County Education Association, Trust Book No. 45, Page 208.
Thomas A. Beckley, Beckley & Madden, for appellant.
James L. Crawford, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anthony C. Busillo, II, Assistant Attorney General, for Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.
Catherine C. O'Toole, for Eastern Lancaster County Education Association.
Susan R. Friedman, Weglarz, Tryon & Friedman, for appellee, Eastern Lancaster County School District.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Rogers, Blatt, Craig, MacPhail and Palladino. Judges Wilkinson, Jr., and Williams, Jr. did not participate. Opinion by Judge Rogers. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Wilkinson.
David Schreffler*fn1 appeals from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County affirming the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board's (PLRB) dismissal of his unfair labor practice charges brought against the Eastern Lancaster County School District (school district) and the Eastern Lancaster County Education Association (union).
The facts as found by the PLRB and supported by substantial evidence of record are as follows:
The union is the certified exclusive representative of the school district's professional employees. Appellant is a high school social studies teacher in the district and, therefore, a member of the bargaining unit, but has never been a member of the union. In September, 1976, the union and the school board executed a two year collective bargaining agreement. One year later the contracting parties negotiated an amendment to the agreement which, inter alia, provided for the extension of group dental insurance
coverage to all professional employees at a cost to be borne equally by the individual employees and the school district.
On September, 6, 1977, the union held a meeting for the purpose of explaining and discussing the amendment and voting on the question of its ratification. Appellant received notification of the meeting in the form of a flier in his school mailbox but did not attend. Both union members and non-members were present at the meeting. All those in attendance were invited to ask questions and express their views concerning the proposed amendment. As required by Article XII of the union constitution and longstanding practice a vote was taken on the question of ratification by a show of hands of the union members present. Non-members were asked to sit apart from members, presumably to facilitate counting the votes. The proposed amendment was ratified by the approximately one hundred union members present with one member dissenting.
Thereafter appellant notified the school district that he did not wish to be included in the group dental plan and did not authorize the requisite payroll deduction of $1.75 (since reduced to $1.31) for that purpose. Nevertheless this amount was deducted from his pay and appellant filed charges with PLRB alleging unfair practices of the union and the school district under ...