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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/30/88)

decided: June 30, 1988.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in the case of AFSCME, Council 13 v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Case No. PERA-C-84-369-E.

COUNSEL

Frank A. Fisher, Jr., Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, John D. Raup, Chief Counsel, for petitioner.

James L. Crawford, with him, Arlene F. Klinedinst, for respondent.

Gary Gordon, Kirschner, Walters & Willig, for intervenor, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 13, AFL-CIO.

Judges Doyle, Barry and McGinley, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 117 Pa. Commw. Page 428]

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (the Board) which, in short, ordered DOT to cease and desist from refusing to collectively bargain with its employee representative

[ 117 Pa. Commw. Page 429]

    and rescind its revised work rules issued on March 1, 1984. For the reasons set forth below we vacate and remand.

On June 19, 1984, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 13 (the Union) filed a charge of unfair labor practices against DOT with the Board. The charge alleged that DOT violated Sections 1201(a)(5) and (9) of the Public Employe Relations Act.*fn1 The facts giving rise to the charge are not complicated. Since 1978 DOT has established work rules for its employees. In 1980 DOT revised its work rules and in March of 1984 it revised its rules again. The Union first became aware of the 1984 revisions following their publication and submission to the employees by DOT's Director of Personnel.

The Union contacted DOT and requested a meeting to discuss the rule changes. The requested meeting never took place due to a disagreement as to the number of Union employees who would be allowed to attend the meeting. The Union then filed its charge with the Board.

Following a hearing before a Board Hearing Examiner, a proposed decision and order was issued which concluded that DOT had violated Sections 1201(a)(5) and (9) of the Act by failing to collectively bargain in good faith over the issue of changes to the ...


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.