Title: Pa. Labor Rel. Bd. v. Afscme, Dist. 84
Citation: 515 Pa. 23, 526 A.2d 769
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: May 29, 1987

515 Pa. 23 (1987) 526 A.2d 769 PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 84, AFL-CIO, by its Guardian Ad Litem, Bruno Dellana, Appellee, and County of Allegheny, Appellee. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued May 16, 1986. Decided May 29, 1987. *24 James L. Crawford, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., Harrisburg, for appellant. Thomas H.M. Hough, Dennis R. Biondo, Asst. County Solicitors, James J. Dodaro, County Sol., Pittsburgh, for appellee Allegheny County. Stuart Davidson, Alaine S. Williams, Philadelphia, Louis B. Kushner, Sandra Kushner, Pittsburgh, for appellee AFSCME. Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ. NIX, Chief Justice. The issue in this appeal is whether the County Commissioners of Allegheny County committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the representative of *25 the County's court-appointed employees over the subjects of paid sick leave, paid funeral leave, paid leave for jury duty, and shift differential. The Commonwealth Court, reversing the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, concluded that the inclusion of such provisions in a collective bargaining agreement would interfere with the inherent power of the judiciary to hire, supervise and discharge court employees. For the reasons that follow we disagree and therefore reverse. At a negotiations session convened on September 24, 1980, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 84, AFL-CIO (hereinafter "the Union"), as representative of the court-appointed employees of Allegheny County, presented a proposed collective bargaining agreement to the County Commissioners (hereinafter "the County").[1] The proposal included, inter alia, the following provisions: The County expressed the view that many of the items, including those quoted above, in the proposal were not within its authority to negotiate and requested the segregation of economic and non-economic terms. The Union chose to submit its proposal for consideration as written and the session was adjourned after ten minutes. On October 31, 1980, the County's special labor counsel wrote a letter to the Union outlining the County's position with respect to the various provisions of the proposed agreement. The Union responded by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (hereinafter "the Board") on November 21, 1980. The Board advised the Union that it would not issue a complaint. The Union's exceptions were dismissed and a final order was filed on March 20, 1981. The Union appealed to the Commonwealth Court,[2] which vacated the Board's order and remanded the record for further proceedings "including an evidentiary hearing at which at least the proposed agreement . . . is admitted into evidence, and an order founded on the full text of the proposed agreement." American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 84, AFL-CIO v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 62 Pa.Commw. 548, 556, 437 A.2d 468, 472 (1981). The Board thereafter concluded that the County had violated section 1201(a)(1) and (5) of the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, art. XII, § 1201(a)(1), (6), *29 as amended, 43 P.S. § 1101.1201(a)(1), (5), (Sup.1986), by refusing to bargain over Articles XII (sick leave), XIII (funeral leave), XIX (jury duty) and XXV (shift differential) of the Union's proposal. The Union and the County filed cross-appeals in the Commonwealth Court,[3] which reversed the Board's decision as to the County's obligation to bargain over sick leave, funeral leave, jury duty and shift differential and affirmed in all other respects. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Counsel 84, AFL-CIO v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 83 Pa.Commw. 591, 477 A.2d 930 (1984). This Court granted the Board's petition for allowance of appeal. Our resolution of this matter turns on whether the inclusion of the subject matter of the provisions in question in a collective bargaining agreement governing court-appointed employees would interfere with the inherent right of the judiciary to hire, discharge and supervise its personnel, thereby impairing the independence of the judicial branch of government and the administration of justice. A review of our decisions in this area will be instructive. The right of public employees to organize and bargain collectively was conferred by the General Assembly in 1970 with the enactment of PERA. To effectuate this right, a concomitant duty to negotiate and bargain with public employees was imposed on public employers. See 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101, 1101.701. Section 601 of PERA provided that "[p]ublic employers may select representatives to act in their interest in any collective bargaining with representatives of public employes." 43 P.S. § 1101.601. Thus it appears that "the Legislature assumed all management interests would participate directly in bargaining unless *30 management expressly chose otherwise." Ellenbogen v. County of Allegheny, 479 Pa. 429, 436 n. 11, 388 A.2d 730, 734 n. 11 (1978). The legislature amended the County Code in 1976 to provide that the county commissioners would be the exclusive representative of management in collective bargaining with public employees in counties of the third through eighth classes.[4] Section 1620 of the County Code, as amended, provides: The impact of this new enactment upon the judiciary was addressed by this Court in a series of decisions in 1978. In Sweet v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 479 Pa. 449, 388 A.2d 740 (1978), we rejected the contention of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, a county of the fourth class, see 16 P.S. § 210(4) (Supp. *31 1986), that an arrangement in which they were not the managerial representative in representation and collective bargaining proceedings would violate the separation of powers. We found that the amendment of section 1620 "establishes an appropriate separation of functions between the judicial and other branches of government and therefore does not infringe upon the independence of the judiciary." Id., 479 Pa. at 454, 388 A.2d at 743 (footnote omitted). Accord, Board of Judges, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Seventh Judicial District, 479 Pa. 457, 461, 388 A.2d 744, 746 (1978). In Ellenbogen v. County of Allegheny, supra, this Court not only upheld the constitutionality of amended section 1620 but also extended its exclusive representation principle to judicial districts not governed by the County Code. We identified the salutary effects of the amendment as follows: We also emphasized that the amendment was not intended to infringe upon the inherent rights of the judiciary: In Commonwealth ex rel. Bradley v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 479 Pa. 440, 388 A.2d 736 (1978), in rejecting the argument of the judges of Philadelphia County that subjecting wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment to collective bargaining would interfere with their ability to administer justice, we again expressed confidence that permitting collective bargaining would not impair judicial independence: We were recently called upon to explain the effect of the 1976 amendment to section 1620 in County of Lehigh v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 507 Pa. 270, 489 A.2d 1325 (1985). In that case the argument was raised that the amendment limited the scope of collective bargaining to matters within the sole control of the county commissioners. In rejecting that interpretation we explained: As in earlier decisions, we added the caveat that the contractual terms negotiated by the county commissioners must not impinge upon judicial control of hiring, discharge and supervision of court employees. Id., 507 Pa. at 278, 489 A.2d at 1329. We also made clear, however, that this general proposition did not preclude the negotiation of *35 terms which could be construed as impacting upon the judicial power in the abstract so long as the judges were consulted by the county commissioners and approved such terms: We turn now to the disputed subjects of the Union's proposed collective bargaining agreement. As stated previously, these are paid sick leave, paid funeral leave, pay for time served on jury duty, and shift differential. The first three of these subjects share a common element. Each concerns employee entitlement to pay for days not worked. As such, these subjects are purely financial in *36 nature and thus permissible areas of collective bargaining. It remains to be determined, however, whether the Union's proposals, as written, would impact upon the court's right to decide whether or not to permit an employee's absence. The sick leave proposal, Article XII, makes clear that sick leave is available when needed and "shall not be a `right of taking' as a vacation." Since sick leave may be taken only when an employee is ill, an occurrence which neither the employer nor the employee can control, the court's supervisory power would not be affected. Sections 4 and 5 of Article XII, however, would slightly affect that power. Section 4 provides that the employer is to notify his immediate supervisor as soon as possible that he will be on sick leave. While this procedure is hardly unusual, it is ultimately for the court to determine the appropriate person to be so notified. Similarly, section 5, which specifies when a doctor's certification may be required, establishes a policy which should be made by the court in the first instance. In accordance with the procedure outlined in County of Lehigh, supra, the County may bargain over those provisions only after consultation with the court. Article XIII, funeral leave, provides that a specified number of days' leave with pay "shall be permitted" and thus deprives the court of its right to determine whether such an absence would interfere with its operation. While the court should permit the use of funeral leave where feasible, the possibility exists that the bereaved employee's absence could adversely impact upon the administration of justice. In such a situation an alternative method of compensation would be appropriate. Thus, while funeral leave is a permissible subject of collective bargaining, the decision as to when and under what circumstances it may be taken must be left to the court. The county commissioners must therefore consult with the court as to this aspect of the funeral leave provision. Article XIX of the proposed agreement, jury duty, provides that employees will receive compensation for the time they are required to serve on jury duty, any payment *37 received for such service being deducted from their pay. This is an entirely appropriate policy which in no way infringes upon the court's authority. The Union's shift differential proposal, Article XXV, would merely provide for additional compensation for time worked during less desirable shifts. This is a purely financial provision which in no way impacts upon the court's supervisory power. The court would remain free to determine what shifts its employees will work. Moreover, the shift differential would, in fact, enhance the court's supervisory function by increasing employee willingness to work evening and night hours. To summarize, all of the four subjects covered by the above contract provisions are permissible areas of collective bargaining. The sick leave and funeral leave provisions of the proposed agreement, however, contain language which would appear to impact upon the court's supervisory authority and require prior consultation with the judges of that court.[5] The jury duty and shift differential provisions are innocuous and open to negotiation. It is clear that there was no justification for the County Commissioners to maintain a position which resulted in an absolute refusal to bargain as to these issues. They had not only the power but the obligation to do so. Therefore, the Board finding that their refusal to bargain over these subjects was an unfair labor practice was correct. Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed and the final order of the Board is reinstated.[6] ZAPPALA, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion. *38 ZAPPALA, Justice, concurring and dissenting. I agree with the majority that the shift differential proposal is a financial provision which may be the subject of collective bargaining. I must dissent, however, from the majority's conclusion that the matters of sick leave, funeral leave, and jury duty are subjects which are properly included in the collective bargaining process. I would hold that the provisions, excluding shift differential, are terms which affect the judiciary's authority to supervise court personnel and that the County Commissioners lack the authority to bargain such terms. See, County of Lehigh v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 507 Pa. 270, 489 A.2d 1325 (1985) (Zappala, J., dissenting opinion). I agree with the Commonwealth Court's conclusion that the PLRB erred in determining that the county had violated the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. § 1101.1201(a)(1) and (5) insofar as those matters are concerned. As the Commonwealth Court stated, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, et al. v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 83 Pa.Commw. 591, 596, 477 A.2d 930, 932 (1984). While the majority concludes that the commissioners have the authority to bargain as to the proposed contract provisions, it emasculates their authority by requiring prior consultation with the judges. It is apparent that this requirement stems from the majority's concern that the sick leave and funeral leave provisions may infringe upon the *39 judiciary's inherent authority to supervise court personnel. The imposition of such a requirement reinforces my opinion that the matters are not bargainable. It does little more than to create the possibility of a conflict between the commissioners and members of the judiciary. If the commissioners are permitted to be the bargaining representatives as to these matters, then their authority should not be fettered with such a requirement. [1] The proposed agreement concerned only court-appointed employees. We express no view herein as to the permissible scope of bargaining with respect to "court-related" employees, i.e., those appointed and supervised by county row officers. [2] The Union initially filed a Petition for Review in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County and an Application for Extraordinary Relief in this Court. On May 19, 1981, we granted the Union's Application and transferred the Petition for Review to the Commonwealth Court. [3] As was the case in the previous Commonwealth Court appeal, these appeals were initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. By order dated April 4, 1983, this Court granted the Union's Application for Extraordinary Relief and transferred the matter to the Commonwealth Court. [4] See 16 P.S. § 102 (1956 &amp; Supp.1986). [5] We are aware of no authority which supports the proposition, implicit in Mr. Justice Zappala's concurring and dissenting opinion, that a bargaining representative must have absolute discretion in the bargaining process. [6] The County argues in its brief that this matter is moot because the Allegheny County Court Employees Union is now the exclusive representative of the court employees and thus the County cannot be ordered to bargain with AFSCME. We reject this contention. The Board found that the County had committed unfair labor practices and issued a remedial cease-and-desist order to prevent future violations. The Board's order is sufficiently broad as to require the county to bargain with the new union.