# Jefferson County Court Appointed Employees Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 28, 2009 · 603 Pa. 482

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539898

## Case

- **Full name:** JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT APPOINTED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 28, 2009
- **Citations:** 603 Pa. 482; 985 A.2d 697; 187 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3051; 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2748
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eakin
- **Judges:** Castille, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 36 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/9539898

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that Pa. Const. art. V, § 1 “vests with the judiciary the power to administer justice,” and the judiciary’s authority over court employees is “essential to the maintenance of an independent judiciary”
- holding, inter alia, that “the Judiciary’s constitutional right to hire, fire, and supervise its employees was violated when the County, via its Salary Board, eliminated ... five trial court employee positions”
- holding that a county salary board acts in an administrative capacity in fixing the salaries and compensation of county employees

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
I am compelled to dissent as I do not believe this matter presents us with an issue of the constitutional separation-of-powers. This case arose from the Association’s attempt to enforce a final grievance settlement, and we granted allocatur on issues pertaining to collective bargaining. Specifically, we accepted the following issues:
*504 1. Does a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement serve as a limitation on the authority of the County’s Salary Board, such that it is an unfair labor practice for the County to refuse to implement final grievance settlements directing the reinstatement of five necessary court appointed employees who were terminated as the result of action taken by the Commissioners, sitting as the Salary Board?
2. Did the Association have standing to grieve and enforce final grievance settlements arising out of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and alleged violation of all collective bargaining agreement provisions?
Jefferson County Court Appointed Employees Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 595 Pa. 402 , 938 A.2d 985, 986 (2007) (table).
Accordingly, all parties focused their arguments on the collective bargaining agreement and whether the Association has standing to enforce the final settlements. Their briefs appropriately contain only peripheral advocacy on whether the Salary Board’s decision violates the constitutional power of the judiciary to hire, fire, and control its employees. I am troubled by rendering constitutional decisions on matters tangential to the question accepted for review; sweeping statements should not be made in dicta and without the benefit of proper advocacy.
Additionally, I do not find the County violated “[t]he judicial branch’s right to hire, fire, and supervise its employees [which] is derived from [Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution].” Majority Op., at 498, 985 A.2d at 707 (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Jiuliante v. County of Erie, 540 Pa. 376, 657 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1995)). Certainly the court may hire and fire, but only within budgetary constraints which are not generally within its control. 1 As the majority acknowledges, the judiciary may not levy taxes to fund judicial operations. *505 Id., at 498 n. 16, 985 A.2d at 707 n. 16 (quoting Beckert v. Warren, 497 Pa. 137 , 439 A.2d 638, 643 (1981)). The budget given the judiciary is based on the stated needs of that branch — it is not a grand, unallocated total accepted by the funding body on faith, from which the court can allocate specific funds as it sees fit. Indeed, the Salary Board alone has authority to set the pay of all judicial employees. See 16 P.S. § 1623 (Salary Board sets compensation for court-appointed but county-paid employees).
The County faced a $1.7 million dollar shortfall, no small matter in a Sixth Class County. One may safely assume that the predominant component of the judiciary’s budget in Jefferson County is the same as in every county and indeed this Court’s own budget — personnel costs. The Salary Board decided the judiciary’s share of the shortfall required the termination of five court employees, and the President Judge ultimately decided which five employees would be let go for want of funds to pay them. Further, speculation about “other options” the judiciary may have had is just that — pure speculation, which is not part of this record, and statements about what might have been cannot be based on such unfounded assumptions.
The issue before us concerns unfair labor practices, specifically the effect of the CBA on the Salary Board’s authority. As the involvement of the judiciary on this issue is strictly peripheral, I would not address the likewise peripheral issues that consume the bulk of my colleagues’ otherwise thoughtful expression. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
. As the majority aptly recognizes, if staff reductions interfere with the administration of justice, the President Judge could bring an appropriate mandamus action.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539898. Public record. Not legal advice.