PA Labor Relations Board Decisions
Middletown Borough Police Officers Association v. Middletown Borough
In this case, the PLRB held that it was an unfair labor practice for the Borough to unilaterally implement a policy manual that affected the police officers wages, hours and working conditions. The Board also found that an officer’s Weingarten rights were violated when he was not permitted to have a union representative with him during an investigatory interview.
Carbon County Sheriffs Association V. Carbon County
The Sheriffs Association petitioned the PLRB for a unit clarification to include Deputies, Sergeants and Lieutenants in the bargaining unit. The County argued that Sergeants and Lieutenants were management supervisors and should not be included in the unit. The Board found that even though Sergeants and Lieutenants perform some management roles, they are not supervisors under the act, and are eligible to remain in the unit.
Palmyra Borough Police Officers Association v. Palmyra Borough
The Police union and the Borough reached an impasse in contract negotiations, and were going to interest arbitration. After the initial hearing in front of the arbitrator, the Chief posted new work rules and policy changes for several consecutive days. The Board found that the Chief committed an unfair labor practice by acting with anti-union animus and retaliation against the bargaining unit for engaging in protected activities.
Deputy Sheriffs Association of Chester County v. Chester County
The Association filed for unit clarification in an attempt to expand the bargaining unit. The Sheriff got mad about this and started a witch hunt to get rid of the President. The President was insubordinate with first line supervisors during the witch hunt, and the Sheriff fired him. The Board found that even though there was compelling evidence that anti-union animus existed, and that the President was being retaliated against for engaging in protected activity, his several acts of insubordination were separate issues and his termination for insubordination was not an unfair labor practice.
PA Liquor Enforcement Association v. PA State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement
The Commonwealth installed Automatic Vehicle Locators on vehicles to monitor “erratic behavior”. The Board found that it was a managerial prerogative to install the devices, but that there was a duty to bargain with the union over the impact of the policy regarding discipline for infractions discovered by the AVLs.
West Conshohocken Police Officers v. West Conshocken Borough
The police department hired a Chief from outside the agency. Some inter turmoil happens and the bargaining unit files some grievances. In the meantime, the Chief finds one of the bargaining unit representatives sleeping on duty in a squad car. He wakes him up and the officer says that the windshield wipers put him to sleep. The Chief does not take immediate action for explainable reasons. More than a month later, the officer gets called in for an investigatory interview. He denies sleeping on duty. The Chief recommends that the officer be suspended 5 days for sleeping on duty, and an additional 15 days for lying in the interview. The Borough Council agrees. The union alleged that the Chief was acting with an anti-union animus. The Board did not agree and the complaint was dismissed.
Manor Township Police Association v. Manor Township
The Township provided police services to a neighboring Borough for 5 years. At the end of the 5 years, the Borough decided to have another agency provide police services because the Township was asking for too much money. This caused the Township to lay off 3 police officers. The union alleged that the layoffs were in retaliation for them taking the township to interest arbitration the previous year, and this was anti-union animus. The Township was able to prove that the payoffs were due to losing the contract with the neighboring Borough, and the Board dismissed the complaint.
FOP Lodge 27 Delaware v. Springfield Township
Lodge 27 represents the Township police. The Township unilaterally made changes to qualifications needed for a promotion without bargaining with the unit. The Board found that this was an unfair labor practice.
FOP Lodge 32 v. City of Butler
Nazareth Borough Police Association v. Nazareth Borough
Fairview Township Police Association v. Fairview Township
Upper Mount Bethel Police Association v. Upper Mount Bethel Township
Ambridge Police Officers Wage and Policy Unit v. Ambridge Borough
Muhlenberg Township Police Labor Oranization v. Muhlenberg Township
Reading FOP Lodge 9 v. City of Reading
Ellwood City Wage and Policy Unit v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
Township of Upper Saucon v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
Beaver Valley Lodge #4 FOP 