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.

SOUTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP POLICE SERVICE v. SOUTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP AND DONALD MACCONNELL (12/30/87)

decided: December 30, 1987.

SOUTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP POLICE SERVICE, APPELLANT
v.
SOUTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP AND DONALD MACCONNELL, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in the case of South Whitehall Township Police Service v. South Whitehall Township and Donald MacConnell, No. 84-E-32.

COUNSEL

Aaron M. Matte, for appellant.

Maria C. Mullane, with her, Blake C. Marles, Weaver, Mosebach, Piosa, Hixson, Wallitsch & Marles, for appellees.

Anthony C. Busillo, II, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania State Lodge, FOP.

Thomas D. Caldwell, Jr., Caldwell & Kearns, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.

Judges Craig and Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 112 Pa. Commw. Page 224]

The South Whitehall Township Police Service (Appellant), the collective bargaining agent for the South Whitehall Township (Township) uniformed police, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County which granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Township and Donald MacConnell, Police Chief (collectively, appellees), and dismissed appellant's Complaint for lack of standing.

At the heart of this matter are three memoranda issued to the uniformed police officers by Chief MacConnell on January 29, 1982, February 8, 1983, and December 26, 1985, establishing a "concrete and objective measure" of employee performance. Pursuant to the memoranda each officer was required to make a certain number of citizen "contacts" per month, such contacts defined as "any personal interaction between an officer performing his police function and a member of the public." Examples of appropriate "contacts" included,

[ 112 Pa. Commw. Page 225]

    but were not limited to, the issuance of warnings or citations, the investigation of a citizen complaint, the apprehension of, contact with or arrest of a suspect, any engagement in the abatement of a problem or the submission of criminal complaints. Any officer failing to make the requisite number of contacts*fn1 was subject to sanctions of increasing severity, ranging from the placement of letters of reprimand within the officer's personnel file to the termination of his employment.

In response to the implementation of the memoranda, appellant filed a Complaint*fn2 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the memoranda collectively constituted a quota system in violation of Section 1 of the Act of October 30, 1981, P.L. 321, ...


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.