 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Plumstead Township v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board6/19/1998
icers suffered any pecuniary losses that are rationally related to their police duties. However, the fact that the Union has not proved economic loss due to unfair labor practices is of no consequence; the PLRB concedes that if, in fact, the police officers suffered no monetary losses, then the Township's liability will be limited to reinstatement of the vehicle take home policy and collective bargaining over the matter.
Second, the Township argues that the PLRB's order to collectively bargain over the vehicle take home policy overrides the Township's ability to manage its budget and equip its police force. The Township reasons that, pursuant to the order, the Township must give a police car, valued at $17,000,to each newly hired officer for commuting purposes, thus impacting the Township's decision to hire new officers. We believe that the Township's concerns are unfounded. The final order of the PLRB states that " uch an expenditure is obviously beyond the actions at issue here, which involve only the rescission of a vehicle take home [policy], and its impact on the existing work force. The [PLRB's] remedial order does not direct the [Township] to purchase new cars for any existing or prospective [police officers]." (PLRB's Final Order of 9/23/97 at 6-7.)
In sum, the Township's challenge to the PLRB's "make whole" directive is unwarranted. The PLRB's order that the Township "make all bargaining unit members whole for any monetary losses suffered" is in the purest sense remedial and not punitive. See Cumberland Valley. In fact, the PLRB's final order directs no more than the usual and customary remedy imposed by the PLRB as a consequence of an employer taking unilateral action in violation of its collective bargaining obligation. Accordingly, we conclude that the PLRB's order is proper in that it is reasonable, remedial in nature and furthers the PLRA's policy of promoting mutual resolution of labor disputes. Because the Township committed unfair labor practices in violation of sections 6(1) and (e) of the PLRA and Act 111 when it unilaterally discontinued the vehicle take home policy and because the PLRB's final order addressing the Township's unfair labor practices is proper, we affirm the final order of the PLRB.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 1998, the final order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, dated September 23, 1997, is hereby affirmed.
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
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.
|
|