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

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · December 15, 1976 · 27 Pa. Commw. 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6363453

## Case

- **Full name:** Pennsylvania Social Services Union, Local 668, Affiliated With Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Social Services Union
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 15, 1976
- **Citations:** 27 Pa. Commw. 552; 367 A.2d 778; 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2134; 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1259
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Blatt
- **Judges:** Blatt, Bowman, Mencer
- **Cited by:** 5 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/6363453

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6363453. Public record. Not legal advice.