Opinion ID: 1378445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The concurring opinion by Denecke, C.J.

Text: The concurring opinion by Chief Justice Denecke is far less drastic than the majority opinion in that it appears to agree with this dissent and to disagree with the majority, with respect to the following holdings by the majority: (a) The holding by the majority that the PECBA statute, which provides a procedure for collective bargaining and compulsory arbitration and supersedes all conflicting city ordinances, is not a procedural statute, but is a substantive statute, because it is addressed to state objectives. (b) The holding by the majority that even if the PECBA statute is a procedural statute, so as to require a showing of a need to safeguard the interests of city firefighters by providing a procedure for collective bargaining and compulsory arbitration, such a required showing of need is satisfied whenever the legislature says that a statute is needed, with the result that under the holding by the majority the question of need is no longer a question to be decided by the courts.