Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in case of Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. McAdoo Borough, Case Nos. PF-C-82-9-E, PERA-C-82-123-E.
Joseph P. Semasek, for petitioner.
William J. Maikovich, with him James L. Crawford and Ellis H. Katz, for respondent.
Richard M. Goldberg, for intervenor.
Judges Craig, Barry and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 159]
McAdoo Borough (Borough) appeals here an order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) holding that the Borough committed unfair labor practices contrary to provisions of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA), Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 211.1 -- 211.13; the Collective Bargaining by Policemen or Firemen Act (Act 111), Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1 -- 217.10; and the Public Employee Relations Act (Act 195), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101 -- 1101.2301.*fn1
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 160]
The facts in this case are undisputed. On January 1, 1982, the Borough and Local No. 401, Teamsters Union (Union) entered into two (2) one-year agreements, one agreement covering the Borough's non-professional employees and the second pertaining to all full-time and regular part-time police officers employed by the Borough. Both agreements were executed and ratified on behalf of the Borough by Council President Frank Aiello, Council Vice-President Edward Perhonitch and Council Members Hubert Hartz and William Slovik. The vote to ratify the agreements was four (4) in favor and three (3) absent. Council member Hartz was a member of the union representing both the police officers and the Borough's non-professional employees.*fn2 He participated in the collective bargaining process on behalf of the Borough and, as stated previously, voted for the ratification of the agreement. The Borough has since failed to implement wage and hospitalization provisions in both agreements and has refused to implement rank and seniority provisions in the agreement with the police officers.
As a result of the Borough's failure to honor the agreements, the Union filed separate charges on behalf of the police officers and of the non-professional employees, both alleging unfair labor practices. These charges were consolidated before the Hearing Examiner who filed a proposed decision finding the Borough had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 1201(a)(1), (a)(5) of Act 195, 43 P.S. § 1101.1201(a)(1), (a)(5) and of Section 6(1)(e) of the
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 161]
PLRA, 43 P.S. § 211.6(1)(e).*fn3 The Borough filed timely exceptions to the proposed decision with the Board which, in turn, affirmed the Hearing Examiner's order. The present appeal followed.
Our scope of review of orders of the Board is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the findings of fact and whether or not conclusions based on those findings are reasonable and not arbitrary, capricious or incorrect as a matter of law. Joint Bargaining Committee of the Pennsylvania Social Services Union v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 307, 449 A.2d 96 (1982). When, as here, the parties agree that no factual dispute is present, we need only review the legal conclusions of the Board. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Association ...