Court Opinion

ID: 9644330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:53:11.262593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:11.618358
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority; however, I disagree with the majority’s statement that in interpreting a statute pursuant to the Statutory Construction Act, 1 *207Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) and (c), the term “shall” is to be interpreted as mandatory. As this court recognized in Commonwealth v. Baker, 547 Pa. 214, 690 A.2d 164 (1997),
Notwithstanding the general rule that “shall” is mandatory, we are aware that the word “shall” has also been interpreted to mean “may” or as being merely directory as opposed to mandatory. See e.g., Commonwealth ex rel. Bell v. Powell, 249 Pa. 144, 94 A. 746 (1915)(interpreting “shall” as “may”); Fishkin v. Hi-Acres, Inc., 462 Pa. 309, 341 A.2d 95 (1975)(interpreting “shall” to be merely directory as opposed to mandatory). In observing that the word “shall” can be ambiguous given that it may be interpreted in at least one of two ways, we have stated that
[ejxcept when relating to the time of doing something, statutory provisions containing the word “shall” are usually considered to be mandatory, but it is the intent of the legislature which governs, and this intent is to be ascertained from a consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other. Francis v. Corleto, 418 Pa. 417, 428, 211 A.2d 503, 509 (1965) quoting, Pleasant Hills Borough, v. Carroll, 182 Pa.Super. 102, 106, 125 A.2d 466, 468 (1956).
Id. at 218, 690 A.2d at 166-67.
Thus, although I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority that an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing employee in an action brought under the Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. §§ 260.1-260.12 (1992), is mandatory, for the reasons explained in Baker, supra, I cannot agree that the term “shall” is always to be interpreted as a mandatory directive.
ZAPPALA A joins in this concurring opinion.