Opinion ID: 2065127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: THE MOTION TO QUASH (Appealability)

Text: The Labor Board argues, as it did before the Commonwealth Court, that its decision not to issue a complaint was discretionary and, therefore, not reviewable under the review provisions of Act 195. The decision of whether or not to issue a complaint does lie within the discretion of the Labor Board. Section 1101.1302 gives the Labor Board authority to issue . . . a complaint; it does not command that it must do so in all cases. [2] Further section 1101.1302 expressly contemplates that, in some cases, complaints will not be issued by the Labor Board. This section specifies who the litigants will be in an unfair practice case in [a]ll cases in which complaints are actually issued by the board . . . . Thus, Act 195 contemplated situations where complaints would not be issued by the Labor Board. The issue, then, is whether or not there is a right of appeal from such a discretionary decision. Section 1101.1502 of Act 195 provides, so far as is relevant, as follows: Any person aggrieved by a final order of the board granting or denying, in whole or in part, the relief sought in any unfair practice case . . . may obtain a review of such order in [Commonwealth Court] [3] . . . by filing in such court, . . . a written petition praying that the order of the board be modified or set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the board, and the board shall file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding certified by the board, including pleadings and testimony and order of the board. Interpreting this section, the Commonwealth Court was of the opinion that only those final orders rendered after a complaint has been issued and a hearing has been held.. . . were subject to review under Act 195. 27 Pa. Cmwlth. at 556, 367 A.2d at 781. That court further stated [q]uite simply, it appears that the possibility [of review of the Board's non-exercise of its discretionary powers] was not foreseen by the legislature. We may not, of course, supply provisions in [Act 195] under the guise of statutory interpretation. Id. Nevertheless, the court held that there was a right to appeal because of long standing principles governing the review of administrative actions. Id. We agree with the result reached by Commonwealth Court, but disagree with their analysis of legislative intent. Section 1101.1502 is ambiguous. It does not specifically include review of a Labor Board decision not to issue a complaint; neither does it expressly exclude such review. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that, since section 1101.1502 required the Labor Board to transmit the pleadings, testimony and fact-findings to the reviewing court, the legislature must have intended to preclude review of a Labor Board administrative dismissal of charges because such a dismissal would necessarily produce no transcript of testimony nor fact-findings. Were Act 195 to be read in a vacuum, this reasoning would be plausible. However, the review provisions of Act 195 are in pari materia (construed with reference to similar matter) with other legislative enactments dealing with review of administrative agency action. [4] These other enactments persuade us that section 1101.1502 of Act 195 contemplates appellate review of a Labor Board decision not to issue a complaint. The Administrative Agency Law (AAL), 71 P.S. § 1710.47, as amended, (Supp. 1978-79) states: Where an Act of Assembly expressly provides that there shall be no appeal from an adjudication of an agency, or that the adjudication of an agency shall be final or conclusive, or shall not be subject to review, or where the applicable acts of assembly are silent on the question of judicial review, any person aggrieved by such an adjudication, who has a direct interest in such adjudication may nevertheless appeal the same in the manner provided by sections 41 through 44 of this act and the applicable rules of civil procedure to the [Commonwealth Court] [5] . (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted). Adjudication is defined by the AAL as any final [6] order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities or obligations of any or all of the parties to the proceedings in which the adjudication is made . . . . Id. § 1710.2(a). Finally, determination is defined by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure as  [a]ction or inaction by a government unit which action or inaction is subject to judicial review by a court under section 9 of Article V of the Constitution of Pennsylvania [7] or otherwise. This term includes an order entered by a government unit. Pa.R.A.P. 102. From the foregoing authority, the Labor Board determination in the present case was a final and appealable adjudication under Act 195 and the AAL. [8] Accordingly, the denial of the motion to quash was proper.