Court Opinion

ID: 9707276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:07:31.48331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:06.721678
License: Public Domain

COLINS, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority that the mootness doctrine should apply. However, I feel that this Court also lacks jurisdiction over this matter, because Temple University is not truly a “public employer.”
Our Supreme Court’s declaration that Temple University was a “public employer,” pursuant to Section 301 of Act 195, in Philadelphia Association of Interns and Residents v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 470 Pa. 562, 369 A.2d 711 (1976), would appear to have been dicta, as the basis of the Court’s ruling was that the interns and residents in question were more truly students than employees.
The instant controversy, in my opinion, falls solely within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, as Temple University’s status as an employer is more analogous to that of the Pennsylvania State University, rather than that of a Commonwealth instrumentality.