Opinion

Pennsylvania Social Services Union, Local 668 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

  • 27 Pa. Commw. 552
  • 367 A.2d 778
  • 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2134
  • 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1259
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 15, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Blatt
On the bench
Blatt, Bowman, Mencer
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.0%

The opinion

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Blatt:

I concur with the majority’s opinion that the letter here involved did not constitute a final order as required by Section 1502 of the Public Employe Relations Act 1 (Act 195), 43 P.S. §1101.1502. I believe, however, that the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board’s (Board) exercise of its administrative discretion pursuant to Section 1302 of Act 195, 43 P.S. §1101.1302, is not reviewable.

Section 1302 of this Act provides, inter alia, as follows :

Whenever it is charged by any interested party that any person has engaged in . . . any such unfair practice, the board . . . shall have authority to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint. . . . (Emphasis added.)

It is clear, that the Board here is impressed with a discretionary power to prosecute an unfair labor prac *561 tice charge and that the exercise of such discretion is not adjudicatory in nature and, therefore, is not reviewable. In Re: Frawley v. Downing, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 517 , 364 A.2d 748 (1976).

In Jacobsen v. National Labor Relations Board, 120 F.2d 96, 99-100 (3rd Cir. 1941), the National Labor Relations Board was held to be empowered as follows:

‘Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in . . . any such unfair labor practice, the Board . . . shall have power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint. . . .’

The court held there that the decision as to whether or not a complaint should issue “rests in the sound discretion of the Board and is the concern of expert administrative policy,” Jacobsen, supra, 120 F.2d at 100 and is generally not reviewable. Kixmiller v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 492 F.2d 641, 645 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Moreover, as the Board noted in its letter in question here, the appellant’s charges could possibly constitute a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement, and the result of that process, of course, would be subject to judicial review.

Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §1101.101 et seq.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.