Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Philadelphia Fire Fighters' Union, Local 22 v. City of Philadelphia
January 9, 2009
PHILADELPHIA FIRE FIGHTERS' UNION, LOCAL 22, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-: CIO, BY ITS GUARDIANS AND LITEM, BRIAN MCBRIDE, PRESIDENT, WILLIAM GAULT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND RAY CLOTHIER, III, VICE PRESIDENT, ET AL., APPELLANTS
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, HONORABLE MICHAEL A. NUTTER, CAMILLE CATES BENNETT AND LLOYD AYERS, APPELLEES
Application for Injunctive Relief Pending Appeal.
AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2009, the Application for Injunctive Relief Pending Appeal is hereby DENIED.
Mr. Justice Baer files a joining concurring statement.
Mr. Justice McCaffery files a dissenting statement.
I join this Court's per curiam order denying the application for injunctive relief filed by the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 (Local 22).*fn1 As set forth in my Concurring Statement in International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 v. City of Philadelphia, No. 39 EAP 2008 (filed January 9, 2009),*fn2 it is my position that this case is the better vehicle for consideration of Local 22's request for injunctive relief pending appeal. Upon reviewing the merits of Local 22's application, I agree with the majority of this Court that it has not demonstrated its entitlement to relief.
Testimony and documentary evidence presented at evidentiary hearings conducted by the trial court on December 16th and 17th, 2008, demonstrate that the closing of the fire companies at issue will not result in layoffs; rather, the displaced firefighters will be reassigned. Moreover, the trial court concluded that Local 22 failed to present sufficient credible evidence establishing that the fire company closings would pose an imminent danger to the firefighters or the community. Trial Court Opinion dated December 29, 2008 at 4-5. Under these circumstances, Local 22 has failed to demonstrate that it will be irreparably injured by the denial of injunctive relief at this point in the proceedings. Thus, I join in the majority's denial of relief at this time, and await consideration of the substantive issue of whether the Commonwealth Court properly vacated the arbitration panel's award, which required the City to engage in a multi-step process prior to closing the fire companies.*fn3
I dissent from this Court's per curiam order denying relief for substantially the same reasons set forth in my Dissenting Statement in International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 v. City of Philadelphia, No. 39 EAP 2008 (Pa. filed January 9, 2009).*fn4
Accordingly, I would grant Appellants' appeal and reverse the lower court decision denying ...
Buy This Entire Record For