Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in case of Professional and Public Service Employees Union Local 1300 v. Frank J. Trinisewski, Jr., James Phillips and Frank P. Crossin, Jr., as Commissioners of Luzerne County, and the County of Luzerne, Luzerne County Courthouse, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, No. 9-E of 1984.
Aaron M. Matte, for appellant.
Richard M. Goldberg, County Solicitor, for appellees.
Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 464]
Professional and Public Service Employees Union Local 1300 (Union) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County granting motion for summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. We will affirm.
The necessary material facts of this case are clear from the pleadings and are not in dispute. The Appellees are the three County Commissioners of Luzerne County and Luzerne County (County). On November 29, 1983, the Union sent a letter to Commissioner Edward A. Brominski, who is no longer a Commissioner, requesting that the County recognize the Union as the bargaining agent for "First-line supervisors and their secretaries in the County of Luzerne." The letter also informed Commissioner Brominski that the Union had "over 50% of the signed authorization cards from these employee's [sic]."
On December 7, 1983, in a letter signed by two of the then County Commissioners, Edward A. Brominski and Frank P. Crossin, the County advised the Union that the County had recognized it as the exclusive bargaining representative. The Union and the Commissioners
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 465]
then in office entered into two written agreements on December 21, 1983, covering wages, hours and working conditions. The Commissioners who succeeded Messrs. Brominski and Crossin adopted a resolution on January 3, 1984, declaring the recognition of the Union and the agreements executed by the former Commissioners with the Union to be "null, void and invalid." The new Commissioners have also refused to honor grievances of two discharged employees, such grievances having been filed pursuant to the agreements of December 21, 1983.
On January 27, 1984, the Union filed a "Complaint in Specific Performance" whereby it asked that the County be commanded to specifically perform all the clauses of the agreements, that it pay all money due under the agreements with interest, and that such other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court may deem necessary or appropriate be awarded. An answer, along with new matter, was filed by the Appellees to which the Union replied. The Appellees then filed a motion for summary judgment.
The Common Pleas Court used the proper standard in considering the motion for summary judgment. It noted that the provisions and criteria for entering a summary judgment are found in Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035, made applicable to equity actions by virtue of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1501. It also correctly noted that summary judgment is to be entered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, together with supporting affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is ...