Canon-McMillan School Board v. Commonwealth

316 A.2d 114, 12 Pa. Commw. 323, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2422, 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1059
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 28, 1974
DocketAppeal, No. 1276 C.D. 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 316 A.2d 114 (Canon-McMillan School Board v. Commonwealth) 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.

Bluebook
Canon-McMillan School Board v. Commonwealth, 316 A.2d 114, 12 Pa. Commw. 323, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2422, 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1059 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinions

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

This is an appeal by the Canon-McMillan School Board (School Board) from an order of the lower court adopting and approving an opinion and final order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Labor Board). The Labor Board found the School Board guilty of having committed an unfair practice in failing to bargain with employee representatives regarding wages for extra-curricular activities contrary to the provisions of Section 1201(a) (5) of the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, 43 P.S. §1101.1201 (a) (5) (Act 195). Our scope of review, of course, is here “. . . limited to a determination of whether the findings of the Labor Board are supported by substantial and legally credible evidence and whether the conclusions deduced therefrom are reasonable and not capricious, arbitrary or illegal”. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 229, 233, 306 A. 2d 404, 407 (1973).

While we must hold that the Labor Board was correct here in finding that the School Board committed an unfair practice, we would emphasize that the issue in this case is a very limited one: once the school board has exercised its discretion and has decided to conduct [326]*326certain extracurricular activities,1 must it bargain with tbe proper employe representatives in regard to tbe amount of wages2 to be paid to those member-employes who are employed to supervise such activities?

The appellants contend that this is not a negotiable matter under Act 195 because it is an issue of managerial policy which affects wages, and it is thus covered by the following “meet and discuss”3 provisions of Section 702: “Public employers shall not be required to bargain over matters of inherent managerial policy, which shall include but shall not be limited to such areas of discretion of policy as the functions and programs of the public employer, standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology, the organization structure and selection and direction of personnel. Public employers, however, shall be required to meet and discuss on policy matters affecting wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment as well as the impact thereon upon request by public employe representatives.” 48 P.S. §1101.702. (Emphasis added.) We believe, however, that the clear wording and meaning of the entire Article YII of Act 195 require a different interpretation.

[327]*327Section 701 of Article VII specifically provides that wages must be a matter subject to collective bargaining, and lists no exceptions to this rule. It provides: “Collective bargaining is the performance of the mutual obligation of the public employer and the representative to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, . . .” 43 P.S. §1101.701. Moreover, even as to the matters excluded from the requirement of collective bargaining in Section 702 (cited above), which are matters of inherent managerial policy, the legislature provided that a “meet and discuss” communication should be conducted where any such policy matter at issue might affect wages. In this case we do not have a policy matter at issue which might affect wages, for the policy matter has already been decided by the School Board, but an issue of wages itself and this issue necessarily comes under the bargaining provision requirements of Section 701.

We believe that this interpretation of Article VII of Act 195 follows the letter of the law as well as its spirit, and that any unduly limited reading of the already narrow scope of the bargaining requirements would prevent the effectuation of the Act’s stated purpose. The Act is intended “to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employes . . . [by] minimizing [disputes] and providing for their resolution . . .”, and effective execution of the Act requires that the parties negotiate the basic issue of wages. Act 195, 43 P.S. §1101.101.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

School Board of Levy County v. Levy County Education Ass'n
492 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Appeal of Berlin Education Association, NHEA/NEA
485 A.2d 1038 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)
Fabrication Specialists, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
334 A.2d 825 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
330 A.2d 264 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
St. Joseph Hospital v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
330 A.2d 561 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Wills Eye Hospital v. Commonwealth
328 A.2d 539 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
316 A.2d 114, 12 Pa. Commw. 323, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2422, 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canon-mcmillan-school-board-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1974.