Opinion ID: 2342788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Endorsement as Political Activity

Text: Pinto argues that, even if he is a civil service employee, he sent the endorsement letter to then gubernatorial candidate Rendell as part of the duties required by his position as an officer in the union and not in his individual capacity. He complains that, in return for the sole benefit of maintaining his status in the Commonwealth's retirement system, he is stripped of the free speech rights guaranteed to every other citizen of this Commonwealth. Further, he avers that he is prohibited from performing his essential job duties because political speech is characteristically intertwined with informative and dutiful union representation. Interestingly, he does concede that a strict application of Sections 905.2(b)(7) and (b)(10), regardless of the context surrounding the speech, means that any expression by [Pinto] to another person of the PSCOA's endorsement of Rendell would subject him to discipline under the Act. (Pinto's Brief at 27.) These arguments are unavailing to me. The United States Supreme Court has held that the interests of the government in avoiding the appearance of bias and favoritism, the maintenance of a workforce in which performance is measured by occupational achievement rather than political activity, and the freedom of public employees from political pressures override the interests of government employees in engaging in overt political campaign activities. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); United Pub. Workers of Am. v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947). The endorsement of a political candidate is an overt political action. It is Pinto's concurrent status as both a Vice President of PSCOA and a classified service employee that creates the necessity to restrict his, not the union's, right to comment publicly on partisan political matters. His interests as a union vice president do not outweigh the State's interests in preventing the classified service from becoming politicized and its employees from thereby losing their impartiality. I do not believe that Pinto is permitted to do what the remaining union members may not do, which is to engage in hard core political activity on their behalf. Further, Pinto could have sent the letter [4] signed by the union only, rather than from him personally as an officer of the union. Notably, Pinto commented on an issue with future implications when he stated, We strongly oppose privatizing in our branch of public safety. This is exactly the type of behavior that Section 905.2(b) was meant to prohibit. Pinto chose to wear two hatsone of a PSCOA Vice President and the second, that of a civil service employee. If Pinto wished to engage in the political activity that he believes is essential to his position, then he needed to accept an unpaid leave of absence as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement. [5] Otherwise, the union alone should have been the letter signatory or one of the other officers who was not on paid leave. [6] Pinto argues that, as the Act 195 representative for almost ten thousand Commonwealth employees, the PSCOA is statutorily obligated to further the interests of its membership. He posits that, inherent in this obligation, is the duty to monitor and, if necessary, participate in the legislative process as it inevitably affects the membership. However, participation in the legislative process does not require political activity such as that prohibited by the Act. Internal endorsements to the union membership as to those prospective candidates whose views are most consistent with the best interests of the union can fulfill the obligation of the representative to the rank and file. [7] However, publishing those endorsements violates the intent and spirit of the Act and compromises the neutrality of a State employee. Finally, Pinto argues that his endorsement letter to Rendell did not affect the State's interests because, when he signed the letter, and it was posted on the PSCOA website, no one could have known that he was a civil service employee. However, it does not follow that, if a civil service employee violates the Act's political activity prohibitions, and no one knows about it, there is no violation. I believe that the decision here is clear. Pinto is a DOC employee and is subject to the restrictions of the Act. Pinto violated those restrictions by engaging in political activity. Accordingly, I would reverse this portion of the Commonwealth Court's decision and reinstate the five-day suspension.