United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 37
v.
North Allegheny School District, Fox Chapel School District, and Montour School District, Appellants
Argued: October 2, 2019
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge,
HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, HONORABLE PATRICA A.
McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON,
Judge, HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge.
OPINION
ANNE
E. COVEY JUDGE.
North
Allegheny School District (North Allegheny), Fox Chapel Area
School District[1] (Fox Chapel), and Montour School District
(Montour) (collectively, School Districts) appeal from the
Allegheny County Common Pleas Court's (trial court)
December 5, 2017 order granting United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 37's
(Union) Motion for Summary Judgment (Summary Judgment
Motion). The School Districts present two issues for this
Court's review: (1) whether the trial court erred and
abused its discretion in granting the Summary Judgment Motion
because it misapplied the relevant provisions of the Public
School Code of 1949 (School Code);[2] and (2) whether the trial
court erred and abused its discretion in granting the Summary
Judgment Motion because summary judgment is premature and
there remain genuine issues of material fact necessary to
establish the elements of the cause of action or defense at
issue.
The
Union represents roofers and operates a union hall by which
it contracts out its members to roofing companies. In the
summer of 2015, Pennsylvania Roofing Company (Pennsylvania
Roofing) successfully bid on a roofing project at Dorseyville
Middle School in Fox Chapel (Dorseyville Project). The
project manual between Fox Chapel and Pennsylvania Roofing
required each Pennsylvania Roofing employee to obtain
criminal background checks as mandated by Section 111 of the
School Code[3] and Section 6344 of the Child Protective
Services Law (CPSL).[4] Eight Union members were denied clearance
to work on the Dorseyville Project as a result of the
background checks.
North
Allegheny solicited bids in the summer of 2015 for roofing
projects at three locations: Marshall Middle School, Marshall
Elementary School, and Bradford Elementary School. Three
separate contracts were awarded. North Allegheny retained
Massaro Construction Management Services (Massaro) to serve
as construction manager for all three project sites. The
general conditions agreed to by Massaro and North Allegheny
required all workers to obtain criminal background checks in
accordance with Section 111 of the School Code and Section
6344 of the CPSL.[5] Six Union members were denied clearance to
work on the North Allegheny roofing projects as a result of
the background checks.
On
August 28, 2015, the Union filed a Complaint in Declaratory
Judgment and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) against the School
Districts seeking a declaration that: (1) the Union's
members are exempt from the requirements of Section 111 of
the School Code and Section 6344 of the CPSL; (2) the
Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA)[6] prohibits the
School Districts from refusing to employ Union members based
on criminal background checks; and (3) the School
Districts' exclusion of Union members was a violation of
due process.[7] On September 14, 2015, the Union filed a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Preliminary Injunction
Motion) to enjoin the School Districts from disqualifying
Union members from the School Districts' projects based
on criminal background checks. Therein, the Union alleged
that its members are exempt from background checks under
Section 111(a.1) of the School Code, 24 P.S. §
1-111(a.1), and Section 6344(a.1) of the CPSL, 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 6344(a.1), because they do not have direct contact
with children.
On
November 4, 2015, the trial court granted the Preliminary
Injunction Motion, thereby allowing the previously
disqualified Union members access to the School
Districts' work sites, and prohibiting the School
Districts from conducting background checks on Union members
unless the position applied for involved direct contact with
children. The School Districts appealed from the Preliminary
Injunction to this Court. On March 29, 2017, the Union filed
the Summary Judgment Motion. On April 18, 2017, this Court
reversed the trial court's order granting the Preliminary
Injunction.
On May
15, 2017, North Allegheny filed a Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (Cross-Motion). On June 9, 2017, the trial court
held a hearing and, on December 5, 2017, the trial court
granted the Summary Judgment Motion and denied the
Cross-Motion. On January 4, 2018, the School Districts filed
a Joint Notice of Appeal from the trial court's
order.[8] On January 23, 2018, the trial court
ordered the School Districts to file a Concise Statement of
the Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) (Rule 1925(b) Statement).
By March 16, 2018 order, the trial court adopted the December
5, 2017 opinion as its Rule 1925(a) opinion. On April 20,
2018, the School Districts filed an unopposed Motion to File
Rule 1925 Statement Nunc Pro Tunc because they did not
receive the trial court's Rule 1925(b) order. On April
23, 2018, the School Districts filed their Rule 1925(b)
Statement.
The
School Districts first argue that the trial court erred and
abused its discretion in granting the Summary Judgment Motion
because the trial court misapplied the relevant School Code
provisions. Specifically, the School Districts contend that
Section 111 of the School Code does not prohibit the School
Districts from conducting background checks for individuals
working on school property who do not have any contact with
children; rather, it merely requires the School Districts to
perform background checks for those individuals who have
direct contact with children. The Union rejoins that barring
the Union members with criminal histories who have no direct
contact with children from work at public school property
violates Section 111(a.1) of the School Code.
Initially,
Section 111 of the School Code, entitled criminal history of
employees and prospective employees; conviction of certain
offenses, provides, in relevant part:
(a.1) Beginning April 1, 2007, this section shall apply to
all . . . independent contractors and their employes, except
those employes and independent contractors and their employes
who have no direct contact with children.
(b) Administrators of public and private schools,
intermediate units and area vocational-technical schools
shall require prospective employes to submit with their
employment application, pursuant to [CHRIA] (relating to
criminal history record information), a report of criminal
history record information from the Pennsylvania State Police
or a statement from the Pennsylvania State Police that the
[Pennsylvania] State Police central repository contains no
such information relating to that person. . . .
24 P.S. ยง 1-111. Section 111 of the School Code
thereafter delineates certain crimes and the corresponding
employment ban for the individuals identified in Section
111(a.1) of the School Code. As ...