decided: June 27, 1986.
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, STAR LODGE NO. 20, PETITIONER
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 Employees of City of Bethlehem, Case No. PF-R-83-74-E, dated June 10, 1985.
Anthony C. Busillo, II, Mancke, Lightman and Wagner, for petitioner.
James L. Crawford, with him, Kathryn Speaker MacNett, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Barry, Colins and Palladino. Opinion by Judge Colins.
[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 562]
The Fraternal Order of Police (Union) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 563]
(Board) which concluded that the City of Bethlehem's Police Commissioner and six (6) Captains are managerial employees within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 211.1-211.13 and that Act commonly referred to as Act 111, Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1-217.10 and, therefore, are excluded from the bargaining unit.
The Union had filed an investigation and certification of representative petitions with the Board, seeking to represent a bargaining unit of the City's Police Department. After a hearing, the hearing examiner determined that the Commissioner and Captains were managerial employees. Thereafter, a representative election was held and the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the Police Department, excluding the aforementioned managerial employees. The Union filed exceptions to the certification, alleging that the Captains should have been included in the bargaining unit. The Board dismissed the exceptions, and affirmed the certification. 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. If so, they are conclusive upon review. Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 502 Pa. 7, 463 A.2d 409 (1983).
This Court has recently approved certain indicia used by the Board to define managerial status. Township of Chartiers v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 98 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 44, 510 A.2d 884 (1986). These include the following:
Policy Formulation -- authority to initiate departmental policies, including the power to issue general directives and regulations;
[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 564]
Program Development -- authority to develop and change operational programs of the Department;
Public Relations -- Independence in representing the Department to the public;
Budget Making -- authority to prepare proposed budgets for the Department, as distinguished from merely making suggestions with respect to particular budget items;
Purchasing Decisions -- authority to make substantial purchasing decisions, rather than merely making suggestions;
Hiring Recommendations -- authority to make recommendations concerning persons to be hired and dismissed by the governing officials;
Disciplinary Rule -- authority to initiate formal disciplinary actions.
The hearing examiner found, inter alia, that the Captains and the Commissioner discussed and resolved policy matters through consensus; that standard operating procedures are drafted by consensus; that the Captains act as a liaison between the police department and various citizen groups; that each Captain prepares a budget for his individual bureau; that the Captains evaluated the officers under their command; and that the Captains have the authority to initiate formal disciplinary actions. After a thorough review of the record, we find that these findings are supported by substantial evidence. These findings support the legal conclusion that the Captains are managerial employees; therefore, the order of the Board is affirmed.
And Now, June 27, 1986, the order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, No. PF-R-83-74-E, dated June 10, 1985, is affirmed.
Affirmed. Reargument heard. Order of Board affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.