Court Opinion

ID: 9717287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:01:08.83068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.321347
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting:
Although I agree with the majority’s disposition on the merits, I respectfully dissent from their determination that this case must be remanded for' an assessment of attorney fees, costs and expenses.
In support of its decision to remand, the majority cites § 206q of the Labor Anti-Injunction Act as well as Solvent Machinery v. Teamsters Local No. 115, 343 Pa.Super. at *555509, 495 A.2d at 581. However, neither of these sources requires an appellate court to remand for a determination of fees and costs following the reversal of a lower court order granting an injunction.
Section 206q provides:
Upon denial by the court of any injunctive relief sought in an action involving or growing out of a labor dispute, the court shall order the complainant to pay reasonable costs and expenses of defending the suit and a reasonable counsel fee.
This section, however, must be read in conjunction with the definitional portion of the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, § 206c, which provides in relevant part:
When used in this act and for the purposes of this act — ...
(d) The term “court” includes every court of common pleas of the several counties of this Commonwealth, including the judge or judges thereof.
Reading these sections together, an assessment of fees is compulsory only when the lower court denies an injunction.
We are not presented with that situation in the case at bar. Rather, the lower court granted the injunction and we are reversing that order as a result of insufficient findings of fact. Therefore, there is no statutory mandate to remand this case for an award of fees and costs.
Additionally, there is no case law which requires a remand under these circumstances. Although the Solvent Machinery court decided to remand in a similar factual situation, there is no language in that opinion which compels us to follow the same course of action. That panel simply remanded “for proceedings consistent with the statute [43 Pa.S.A. § 206q] ...”
I believe that a reversal of the lower court order granting an injunction without a remand of the case for an award of fees and costs is consistent with the Labor Anti-Injunction Act. This statute only compels an assessment of fees and costs when the lower court denies the injunction.
*556Here, the lower court believed an injunction was proper; however, it did not make sufficient findings of fact to support its order.
Under these circumstances, I think it is improper to penalize the appellee by requiring him to pay appellant’s attorney fees, expenses and costs. There is no indication that the petition for injunction was frivolous. Appellee should not be punished for bringing a claim of arguable merit before the court. As the majority concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion.