Segilia v. Riverside School Service Personnel Ass'n

526 A.2d 832, 106 Pa. Commw. 336, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2190
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 27, 1987
DocketAppeal, No. 1194 C.D. 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 526 A.2d 832 (Segilia v. Riverside School Service Personnel Ass'n) 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
Segilia v. Riverside School Service Personnel Ass'n, 526 A.2d 832, 106 Pa. Commw. 336, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2190 (Pa. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Barry,

Loretta Segilia (appellant) filed an action against the Riverside School Service Personnel Association (union) alleging that it failed to properly represent her during negotiations with her employer, the Riverside School District. The Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County sustained the unions preliminary objections questioning the courts jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.

When considering preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we must accept as true all of the well-pleaded facts in the appellants complaint. Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 193, 403 A.2d 1031 (1979). Appellant avers in her complaint that she has been employed by the Riverside School District in the position of lunch monitor since 1968; she is a member of the bargaining unit; during two contract periods, covering a total of six years, the union never sought a wage increase on her behalf; all other em[338]*338ployees obtained wage increases during this time period. Based on these facts, appellant sought damages for the Unions failure to fairly represent her interests in the collective-bargaining process. The trial court held that it had no jurisdiction over this matter because appellants complaint raised issues which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. We agree.

In Robinson v. Abington Education Association, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 563, 379 A.2d 1371 (1977), aff'd per curiam, 492 Pa. 218, 423 A.2d 1014 (1980) (equally divided court), union members filed a suit in equity charging the union with failure to fairly represent them in contract negotiations which resulted in the elimination of a certain employment benefit. We held that the union members’ charges involved unfair labor practices under Section 1201(b)(3) of the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §1101.1201(b)(3), which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

Appellant essentially maintains that Robinson is no longer applicable in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ziccardi v. Commonwealth, 500 Pa. 326, 456 A.2d 979 (1982). In Ziccardi, however, the question was whether the union’s refusal to submit a grievance to arbitration' falls within any of the unfair labor practices listed under Section 1201(b) of PERA.1 The Supreme [339]*339Court held that it did not fall within any of these provisions and that a public employees only remedy in such a situation is an action against the union for breach of its duty of fair representation. The case at hand is distinguishable from Ziccardi in that it does not involve a unions refusal to submit a grievance to arbitration but rather the unions alleged failure to fairly represent a member during labor negotiations. As the trial court correctly noted, this falls within Section 1201(b)(3) of PERA which prohibits employee organizations from “[rjefusing to bargain collectively in good faith with a public employer.”

[340]*340Based on the foregoing, we conclude that appellants allegations against the union constitute unfair labor practices within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

Affirmed.

Order

Now, May 27, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County at No. 4811 CIV 1985, dated March 26, 1986 is affirmed.

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

Related

Case v. Hazelton Area Educational Support Personnel Ass'n
928 A.2d 1154 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Case v. HAZELTON EDUCATION. PERSONNEL ASS'N
928 A.2d 1154 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Case v. Hazleton Area School District
915 A.2d 1262 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Arcurio v. Greater Johnstown School District
582 A.2d 402 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
Segilia v. RIVERSIDE SCH. S. PER. ASSN.
526 A.2d 832 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
526 A.2d 832, 106 Pa. Commw. 336, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segilia-v-riverside-school-service-personnel-assn-pacommwct-1987.