decided: November 12, 1981.
WILLIAM J. ROPER, APPELLANT
BOROUGH OF VERSAILLES, APPELLEE
Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of William J. Roper v. Borough of Versailles, No. SA 822 of 1980.
John A. Bacharach, Girman & Bacharach, for appellant.
Arnold V. Plum, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish.
[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 338]
William J. Roper appeals an Allegheny County Common Pleas Court order upholding his employment termination as a part-time police officer by the Borough of Versailles. We affirm.
On January 7, 1980, the Versailles Borough Council passed and recorded this resolution:
[T]o nominate the retention of all existing part-time police, subject to the condition [that] they continue employment with the Versailles Borough police department alone.
On January 17, 1980, Roper was informed by the Chairman of the Police Committee and Versailles's Chief of Police of the Council action.*fn1 Roper, however, continued in the employ of Lincoln Borough as a part-time police officer and was notified in writing by the Police Committee Chairman that he was through in Versailles.
Roper contends that the resolution on its face barred all outside employment of the Borough's part-time
[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 339]
police officers, and therefore asserts that the application of the resolution against him is discriminatory since other part-time policemen employed by Versailles were not dismissed although they maintained other non-municipal employment.*fn2
As always, we are called upon to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislative body to obtain a result which is neither absurd nor unreasonable. Valley Forge Industries, Inc. v. Ormand Construction, Inc., 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 600, 606, 394 A.2d 677, 678 (1978).
In considering the Resolution passed and the contemporaneous discussion accompanying it, we are satisfied that the focus of the Borough Council's action was to prevent additional outside part-time police responsibilities and not to restrict all part-time activity by its policemen. To interpret the Borough's motion otherwise would be unreasonable and, by its Council's admission, unrealistic.
The Borough's intention is clear and will be given due effect.*fn3 Affirmed.
The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas order, dated September 15, 1980, No. SA 822 of 1980, is affirmed.