Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of In Re: Appeal from Decision of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. In the Matter of the Employees of the Port Authority of Allegheny County, No. SA 496 of 1977.
Joseph J. Pass, Jr., with him Edward H. Walter, Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri, P.C., for appellant.
James L. Crawford, with him Anthony C. Busillo, II, for appellee, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.
Robert E. Sheeder, with him James Q. Harty, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellee, Port Authority of Allegheny County.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Blatt, Craig and MacPhail. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 208]
This is an appeal by the Amalgamated Transit Union (Union) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which affirmed a decision of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) dismissing the Union's unfair labor practice charges.
In 1973, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (Authority) and the Union began negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. In the course of these negotiations, a dispute arose concerning the Authority's proposal for a progressive discipline system. The strike that then ensued was later settled when counsel for the Union drafted Section 105 of the collective bargaining agreement recognizing the right of the Authority to discipline employees. This section states as follows:
The Authority has the right to discipline employees covered by this agreement for sufficient cause under the theory of progressive discipline. Discipline, as used here, includes the making of written record entries as well as suspension or discharge.
In November 1974, the Authority submitted a proposed disciplinary code to the Union with a request for comments. The Union responded that the Authority lacked the power under the collective bargaining agreement to implement a disciplinary code containing substantially the same provisions as those rejected by the Union during negotiations. When the Authority persisted in enacting the code, the Union filed a grievance and requested arbitration. The arbitrator
[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 209]
found in favor of the Authority, ruling that the disciplinary code was a "mere ...