Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AMERICAN FEDERATION STATE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/08/86)

decided: May 8, 1986.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13, AFL-CIO, BY ITS TRUSTEE AD LITEM, EDWARD J. KELLER, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in case of In the Matter of the Employes of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Environmental Chemist II), Case No. PERA-U-84-200-E (PERA-R-3294-C).

COUNSEL

Robert A. Sloan, with him, Alaine S. Williams, and Nancy J. McCauley, Kirschner, Walters, Willig, Weinberg & Dempsey, for petitioner.

Patricia J. Goldband, with her, James L. Crawford, and Anne E. Covey, for respondent.

Nathan C. Pringle, Jr., Assistant Counsel, for intervenor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Judges Barry and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 139]

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) filed a Petition for Unit Clarification with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) seeking to include the recently created position of Environmental Chemist II in a previously certified bargaining unit of professional, non-supervisory engineering and scientific employees. Following a hearing, a Hearing Examiner of the Board issued a Proposed Order of Unit Clarification, wherein he concluded that the position of Environmental Chemist II is a management level position and not within AFSCME's previously certified bargaining unit. AFSCME filed exceptions with the Board, which affirmed the Hearing Examiner's Proposed Order. This appeal followed.

In reviewing an order of the Board, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the factual findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence and whether the conclusions of law are reasonable. If supported by substantial evidence, the findings

[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 140]

    of the Board are conclusive on review. Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 502 Pa. 7, 463 A.2d 409 (1983). Hence, our review must focus on whether there is rational support in the record, when reviewed as a whole, for the Board's order.

A "management level employe" is defined as "any individual who is a involved directly in the determination of policy or who responsibly directs the implementation thereof and shall inclclude all employes above the first level of supervision." Section 301(16) of the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 1101.301(16). The Board concluded that Environmental Chemist II is a management level position because those individuals within such classification "direct the implementation of policy."

A review of the record supports this conclusion. One of the Environmental Chemists,*fn1 in discussing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.