American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
This text of 593 A.2d 4 (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) denying AFSCME’s request to represent the Commonwealth’s Waterways Conservation Officers (WCOs)1 as “police” for purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act, Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1-217.10 (commonly referred to as Act 111). We affirm.
[354]*354PROCEDURAL HISTORY
AFSCME filed a petition for representation pursuant to Act 111 alleging that a question had arisen concerning the representation of WCOs as “police.” 2 AFSCME already had been certified as exclusive representative of WCOs pursuant to the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101-1101.2301 (PERA). The PLRB, therefore, was required to determine whether WCOs were “police” as defined in Act 111.
The PLRB issued a letter declining to direct a hearing on AFSCME’s petition. The secretary determined that WCOs are not covered by Act 111, based upon section 304(b) of the Fish and Boat Code, 30 Pa.C.S. § 304(b), which states:
This title does not change the status of waterways patrolmen for the purpose of [PERA] or cause waterways patrolmen to be considered policemen for the purpose of [Act 111]....
AFSCME filed exceptions, and the PLRB remanded to the secretary for further proceedings. By agreement of the parties, the hearing was bifurcated in order to decide the question of whether WCOs are “police” within the meaning of Act 111 before determining the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit.
The hearing examiner determined that WCOs are police within the meaning of Act 111. Thereafter, the parties stipulated that the bargaining unit would consist of all full-time and regular part-time WCOs, excluding managerial employees. After a proper election, a PLRB representative certified AFSCME as exclusive representative of WCOs for purposes of collective bargaining under Act 111.
The Commonwealth filed exceptions. The PLRB sustained the exceptions, dismissing AFSCME’s petition for representation. The PLRB recognized that the WCOs do effectively act as policemen in the normal course of their duties but concluded that WCOs are not legislatively autho[355]*355rized to act as police, based solely on section 304(b) of the Fish and Boat Code.
ACT 111
Section 1 of Act 111 provides:
Policemen or firemen employed by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth or by the Commonwealth shall, through labor organizations or other representatives designated by fifty percent or more of such policemen or firemen, have the right to bargain collectively with their public employers____
43 P.S. § 217.1.
“While granting bargaining rights to police personnel in the Commonwealth, Act 111 fails to define who is or is not a policeman within the meaning of Act 111.” Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Park Rangers), 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 549, 552, 558 A.2d 581, 583 (1989). To establish whether or not certain employees are “police” within the meaning of Act 111, the PLRB and the courts apply a two-part test that requires the particular employees (1) be legislatively authorized to act as police, and (2) effectively act as police. Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Capitol Police), 64 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 525, 441 A.2d 470, affd in part, rev’d in part, 502 Pa. 7, 463 A.2d 409 (1983); Venneri v. County of Allegheny, 12 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 517, 316 A.2d 120 (1974). The Supreme Court has recognized the PLRB’s jurisdiction over Act 111 representation cases and has emphasized the danger of substituting the judgment of a court for the expert and specialized administrative judgment of the PLRB. Philadelphia Fire Officers v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 470 Pa. 550, 369 A.2d 259 (1977).
ANALYSIS
The parties agree that WCOs meet the second part of the test of Capitol Police and effectively act as police. [356]*356AFSCME argues that the PLRB erred as a matter of law in concluding that WCOs do not meet the first part of the Capitol Police test because they are not legislatively authorized to act as police.3 At this point our analysis of this case diverges from that of the PLRB. We conclude that WCOs are legislatively authorized to act as police, but they nevertheless are legislatively excluded from coverage under Act 111 by reason of section 304(b) of the Fish and Boat Code.
Section 901(a)(12) of the Fish and Boat Code, -30 Pa.C.S. § 901(a)(12), empowers the Fish Commission’s executive director to grant WCOs the authority to act as police, in that they may “pursue, apprehend, or arrest any individual suspected of violating any provision of Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses)____” Pursuant to this legislation, the Fish Commission’s regulation at 58 Pa.Code § 51.13 grants police authority to WCOs.4
[357]*357Section 902 of the Fish and Boat Code, 30 Pa.C.S. § 902,5 authorizes WCOs to enforce all other laws of the Commonwealth as well as rules and regulations, relating to game, parks and forestry, under the direction of the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Department of Environmental Resources.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Capitol Police supports the conclusion that WCOs are legislatively authorized to act as police. There, the Commonwealth argued that insufficient legislative grant of power existed to sustain the test that the capítol police were legislatively authorized to act as police. Although the capítol police were not specifically afforded Act 111 status in any legislation, the Supreme Court affirmed our holding that section 2416(e) of The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. § 646(e),6 was a sufficient grant of [?]*?police powers to confer “police” status for purposes of Act 111.
Our decision in Park Rangers also supports the conclusion that WCOs are legislatively authorized to act as police. We relied on section 1906-A of The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. § 510-6(7),7 as demonstrating the legislature’s broad grant of authority to park rangers and held that they should be considered “police” for Act 111 purposes.
Because of the description of reciprocal duties of forest, fish and game offices set forth in the Act of April 21, 1915, P.L. 156, as amended, 71 P.S. § 766,8 WCOs are granted the same “police” duties as park rangers.
[359]*359Although WCOs effectively act as “police” and have the same type of broad authority as the employees in Park Rangers and Capitol Police,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
593 A.2d 4, 140 Pa. Commw. 352, 1991 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-federation-of-state-county-municipal-employees-v-pennsylvania-pacommwct-1991.