considering the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, its administrative expertise, and the nature of its adjudicatory functions and concluding: “It is plain enough that, in the public interest, such Board members were not to be made amenable to political influence or discipline in the discharge of their official duties.”
How later courts described this case
- considering the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, its administrative expertise, and the nature of its adjudicatory functions and concluding: “It is plain enough that, in the public interest, such Board members were not to be made amenable to political influence or discipline in the discharge of their official duties.”
- rejecting governor’s claim that he could remove at his pleasure a member of the Labor Relations Board, whose “members were not to be made amenable to political influence or discipline in the discharge of their official duties”
- stating similar language in different statutes requires the same construction
- Governor could not remove member of Labor Relations Board who was appointed for statutorily fixed tenure
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Musmanno:
I join in the able, in fact, magnificent, Dissenting Opinion written by my brother Benjamin R. Jones in this case. The purpose of this separate dissent is merely to say that while Justice Jones disagrees with the Watson case, * “reluctantly,” I oppose it whole-heartedly. I would overrule it instanter. When it was promulgated, I filed a Dissenting Opinion against it to *559 .the extent of twelve closely printed pages. By reference, I repeat and emphasize everything I said in that Dissent.
386 Pa. 117 .