Court Opinion

ID: 9697225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:08:57.325376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:30.018818
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Craig:
The decisions of this court have consistently held that the prospective loss of state subsidy for failure to comply with the 180-day instruction requirement is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for a trial court to issue an injunction against a strike of schoolteachers. In Bristol Township Education Association v. School District of Bristol Township, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 463, 322 A.2d 767 (1974), both the majority and the dissenting opinions asserted that the mere threatened loss of subsidy alone is not sufficient to warrant an injunction.
In this case, the findings and conclusions of the trial judge identify no particular danger arising from the threatened loss of subsidy; thus, to affirm the injunction is to base it upon the passage of time alone.
President Judge Crumlish and Judge Doyle join this dissent.