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.

05/19/97 DELAWARE COUNTY LODGE NO. 27 v.

May 19, 1997

DELAWARE COUNTY LODGE NO. 27, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT



Appealed From No. PF-C-95-68-E. State Agency Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

Before: Honorable James Gardner Colins, President Judge, Honorable Joseph T. Doyle, Judge (p.), Honorable Charles A. Lord, Senior Judge. Opinion BY President Judge Colins

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Colins

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE COLINS

FILED: May 19, 1997

Presented to the Court is the question whether the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) erred in dismissing a charge of unfair labor practice brought by the Delaware County Lodge, No. 7, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) against Haverford Township (Township). Based on our Conclusion that the PLRB erred in part, the order of the PLRB is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the PLRB for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On March 15, 1995, the FOP filed with the PLRB a charge that Haverford Township engaged in unfair labor practices contrary to the provisions of Sections 6(1)(a) and (e) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act *fn1 and Act 111, *fn2 by imposing on the bargaining unit a traffic citation issuance quota, as a unilateral term or condition of employment, requiring members of the bargaining unit *fn3 to engage in prohibited and unlawful conduct in violation of Act 114. *fn4 The Secretary of the PLRB issued a complaint and the matter was assigned to a conciliator to seek resolution of the dispute. When no resolution of the dispute was reached, a hearing was held.

The hearing examiner found that the Township police department is comprised of 36 officers and eight sergeants. In addition to regular patrol activities, the Township organized a Special Response Team (SRT). The SRT is a highly trained tactical response unit designed for deployment in specialized, life threatening, high risk situations such as barricaded persons, hostage taking incidents and high risk drug warrant searches. The SRT is comprised of thirteen members. Once selected for SRT, the members serve for an indefinite term, and other than overtime pay for call out when not on duty, there is no additional remuneration for SRT members.

The chief of police selects SRT members from a pool of members who volunteer for the SRT. SRT members are selected because they are a "cut above" the average patrolman. (PDO, p.2.) In order to be selected and remain a member of the SRT, an officer must be above average in productivity as measured by the categories enumerated on the officer monthly activity report. SRT members need to be self-motivated and an officer's productivity is an indicator of self-motivation.

To determine an officer's productivity the Township began tracking departmental activity in 1994. The numbers used in each category came from each officer's daily and weekly activity reports submitted by platoon sergeants to their lieutenant. The categories tracked were:

1. arrests made;

2. traffic citations issued;

3. non-traffic citations issued;

4. motor vehicle written ...


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.