explaining that the pre-PERA circumstances — in which public employees were prohibited from striking and lacked the right to bargain collectively — fostered a “chaotic climate that resulted from this obviously intolerable situation” and heralded the creation of a government commission which found a “need for collective bargaining to restore harmony in the public sector and to eliminate the numerous illegal strikes and the widespread labor unrest”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the pre-PERA circumstances — in which public employees were prohibited from striking and lacked the right to bargain collectively — fostered a “chaotic climate that resulted from this obviously intolerable situation” and heralded the creation of a government commission which found a “need for collective bargaining to restore harmony in the public sector and to eliminate the numerous illegal strikes and the widespread labor unrest”
- holding that even if a matter “does affect wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment,” if “the matter is one of inherent managerial policy,” it is not subject to mandatory bargaining as a “working condition[]”
- discussing whether impact of issue on interest of employee in wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment outweighs its probable effect on basic policy of school system
- discussing relationship between duty to bargain and accommodation provision in that State’s public employee bargaining law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EAGEN, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot subscribe to the views expressed in Part II or Part III of the opinion filed by Mr. Justice Nix. He fails to give proper weight to Section 702 of Act 195 and, in effect, nullifies it. In fact, if the Legislature intended to give public employees the sweeping, all-encompassing collective bargaining rights that Mr. Justice Nix indicates, enactment of Section 702 was the height of futility.
After reviewing the instant record, it is my personal view that the conclusions and ruling of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board reasonably comport with the intent of the Legislature when it enacted Act 195. Moreover, the expertise of the Board in this class of case should be recognized and its conclusions sustained absent *517 substantial error. I, therefore, would reverse the Order of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate and affirm the Order of the Board.