 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association6/22/2005
either involving malfeasance in carrying our his duties (Greene) or stealing from the government (Easton), Grievant's conduct in putting on the "patch" did not directly involve her governmental duties, but only the ability to carry out those functions made even less relevant because she was becoming ill and she immediately sought and received permission to be relieved of those functions.
If we were to hold that conduct of this nature fell within the core functions doctrine, any unexcused absence would give an employer "unfettered ability" to discharge an employee because when an employee is not at work, such as when a teacher is absent, it impacts the employer's ability to carry out its core functions. This example illustrates that by expanding the "core function" doctrine to the extent the majority does in this case makes prescient Justice Saylor's reluctant concurrence in Greene where he predicts that the "core function" doctrine is unworkable because, like here, this exception will subsume the essence test. He states in full:
As suggested by the dissent in City of Easton v. American Fed'n of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 447, 562 Pa. 438, 756 A.2d 1107 (2000), [with which he joined] the core functions doctrine fashioned in that case is inherently incompatible with an exclusive focus on rational derivation from the collective bargaining agreement, as reflected in the essence test as developed by this Court. See id. at 451, 756 A.2d at 1114 (Cappy, J., dissenting). See generally State Sys. of Higher Educ. (Cheyney Univ.) v. State College Univ. Prof'l Ass'n (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135, 150, 743 A.2d 405, 413 (1999) (articulating the essence test). For this reason, although I certainly respect the majority's effort, I believe that it is ultimately unsuccessful in its attempt to couch the result of this case in terms of a reasoned application of the essence test. In my view, City of Easton supplants the essence test in favor of something akin to the otherwise discredited manifest unreasonableness standard, for certain cases arising in the public sector in which the employer 's core functions can be said to be implicated by the arbitrator's decision. As I am bound by City of Easton, I concur in the result.
852 A.2d at 310.
Accordingly, because a 23-year employee who had a good record as an employee but lacked good judgment on one occasion while not working with children does not foreclose an Employer of carrying out its "core function" of providing education to its students, I would affirm the Arbitrator's award and reverse the trial court.
DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|