# Wolkoff v. Owens

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · January 15, 1974 · 12 Pa. Commw. 74

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6361599

## Case

- **Full name:** Myron Wolkoff, Anthony Cognetti, Thomas Francis, Vincent Manzo, and James Doherty, All Councilmen of the City of Scranton, and Eugene J. Peters, Mayor of the City of Scranton, David Davis, Treasurer of the City of Scranton, William P. Feldcamp, Jr., Controller of the City of Scranton, Anthony Batsavage, Director of the Department of Public Safety of the City of Scranton, and the City of Scranton v. John Owens, Chester Cimini, Albert Kathalynas, George Zvirblis, Anthony Gustaitis, Peter Malarkey, Joseph Owca, Frank Evans, A. Chester Lenceski, Willard Getz and Albert Richards
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 15, 1974
- **Citations:** 12 Pa. Commw. 74; 314 A.2d 545; 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bowman
- **Judges:** Blatt, Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Menoer, Rogers, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6361599

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
President Judge Bowman :
I concur in the result reached by the majority for the reason that the record, in my opinion, clearly establishes that the City of Scranton in discharging certain policemen while retaining police officer trainees with less seniority, did not adopt a rational or fair program in reducing the police force for want of sufficient funds. I also agree that the lower court erred in the statutory law to be applied.
I dissent, however, from what I understand to be the view of the majority that the City of Scranton cannot, for reasons of economy or want of sufficient funds, reduce the size of the police force without the consent of the policemen affected or through the procedures and adjudications required by the Act of April 11, 1931, P. L. 38, as amended, 53 P.S. §§30471-30475, pertaining to the removal of policemen or firemen for cause associated with their individual conduct or performance of duty.
Certainly any local government, charged with the duty and empowered to regulate its affairs, has the *82 power and authority — absent contrary statutory mandate — to reduce the number of persons employed by it for any proper purpose subject only to requirements of reasonableness and fairness in exercising such power and within the framework of any lawful provision of a collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable.
Judge Rogers joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6361599. Public record. Not legal advice.