 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Plumstead Township v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board6/19/1998
Argued May 5, 1998
Plumstead Township (Township) appeals from a final order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board(PLRB) concluding that the Township committed unfair labor practices in violation of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA) and the Collective Bargaining by Policemen or Firemen Act (Act 111) when the Township unilaterally discontinued allowing police officers to take their police vehicles home after completing their duty shifts. We affirm.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Township instituted a vehicle take home policy for Township police officers. Initially, the police chief was allowed to take a marked police car home overnight in case he needed to respond to emergencies or make arrests while off duty. (PLRB's Findings of Fact, No. 3.) Due to various circumstances, by 1994 the Township extended the vehicle take home policy to all Township police officers, allowing the officers to take police cars home after completing their duty shifts. In early 1996, the Township's police chief conducted a survey to determine how often officers responded to emergency calls while off duty. (PLRB's Findings of Fact, No. 6.) After completing the survey, the police chief concluded that the vehicle take home policy no longer was warranted, and he recommended that it be discontinued. (PLRB's Findings of Fact, No. 6.) The Township decided to discontinue allowing officers to take marked police cars home in order to achieve cost savings. (PLRB's Findings of Fact, No. 15.) On October 24, 1996, the Township notified all Township employees that police officers were no longer allowed to take marked police cars home after completing their scheduled shifts. (PLRB's Findings of Fact, No. 7.) The Township implemented this policy on January 1, 1997. (PLRB's Findings of Fact, No. 7.)
On January 8, 1997, the Plumstead Township Police Benevolent Association (Union) filed an action against the Township, alleging that the Township engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sections 6(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the PLRA and Act 111 when "the Township unilaterally implemented a policy forbidding members from driving police cars to and from work and keeping them at their homes during off duty hours." (R.R. at 3a.) In response, the Township filed an answer and new matter, and a hearing was held before a PLRB hearing examiner.
On May 29, 1997, the hearing examiner issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO), concluding that the Township committed unfair labor practices in violation of sections 6(1)(a) and (e) of the PLRA and Act 111 because the Township unilaterally changed a mandatory subject of bargaining when it rescinded the police vehicle take home policy. (PDO of 5/29/97, Conclusion of Law, No. 4.) The hearing examiner ordered the Township to rescind the January 1, 1997 policy, reinstitute the prior police vehicle take home policy and make all bargaining unit members whole for any monetary losses suffered as a result of the January 1, 1997 policy. The Township filed timely exceptions to the PDO. On September 23, 1997, the PLRB issued a final order, sustaining in part and dismissing in part the Township's exceptions, and making the PDO final as modified. The PLRB concluded that the vehicle take home policy is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Act 111, and, thus, the Township could not unilaterally rescind that policy. The Township now appeals to this court.
The following issues are presented for our consideration: (1) whether the Township had an obligation to bargain with the Union before discontinuing the police officers' vehicle take home policy; and (2) if so, whether the PLRB's final order proscribed a proper remedy for the Township's violation of th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|