IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH,

 Respondent

 v.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

 Petitioner

 Intervenor

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 948 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH

 v.

 

 Intervenor

PETITION OF: 

 Intervenor

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 15 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS 

BOARD

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1813

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1813 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1813

37 MAP 2015

38 MAP 2015
[948 MAL 2014, 949 MAL 2014, 15 MAL 2015 and 16 MAL 2015] - 2

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH,

 Respondent

 v.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

 Petitioner

 Intervenor

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 949 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH

 v.

 

 Intervenor

PETITION OF: 

 Intervenor

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 16 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR 

Order of the Commonwealth Court

RELATIONS BOARD

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1813

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1813

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1813
[948 MAL 2014, 949 MAL 2014, 15 MAL 2015 and 16 MAL 2015] - 3

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2015, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB)

in the appeal at 948-49 MAL 2014, are:

(1) Did the Commonwealth Court exceed the scope and standard of appellate

review by ignoring binding Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent and

reversing a PLRB final order where the PLRB did not clearly err in holding

under the existing terms of the PLRA, that absent a cessation of work by

employes of a neutral employer, there must be threats, intimidation, force,

coercion or sabotage to find a violation of Section 6(2)(D) of the PLRA?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court exceed the scope and standard of appellate

review where the PLRB did not err as a matter of law in concluding that

the Borough violated Section 6(1)(a) and (c) of the PLRA by disciplining

the union president because of his non-threatening, non-coercive letter to

IAFF members concerning a labor dispute?

The issues, as stated by International Association of Firefighters, Local 1813 in the

appeal at 15-16 MAL 2015, are:

(3) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Pennsylvania Labor

Relations Board’s final order by failing to give the Board’s interpretation of

the PLRA controlling weight and thereby exceeding its standard of

review?

(4) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Pennsylvania Labor

Relations Board’s final order by failing to abide by prior, relevant

precedent, overruling sub silentia a controlling decision of this Court, and

effectively creating a new violation of the PLRA where this Court has

determined one does not and cannot exist?

(5) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Pennsylvania Labor

Relations Board’s final order when the Commonwealth Court erroneously

concluded that the local [union] had violated Section 6(2)([D]) and

therefore reversed the Board’s decision that the Borough had violated

Section 6(1)(a) and (c) of the PLRA?