Opinion

Teamsters Local 115 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

  • 152 Pa. Commw. 394
  • 619 A.2d 382
  • 1992 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 776
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 29, 1992
Status
Published
Author
Kelley
On the bench
Craig, Doyle, Colins, Palladino, McGinley, Smith, Kelley
Cited by
14 cases

holding that judicial employers may not interfere with employees’ attempts to form a union for purposes of collectively bargaining with the county on issues related to their pay and benefits

How later courts described this case

  • holding that judicial employers may not interfere with employees’ attempts to form a union for purposes of collectively bargaining with the county on issues related to their pay and benefits
  • the courts of common pleas are part of the state government and employees of the courts of common pleas are employees of the state

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

KELLEY, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

*409 I believe that the literal construction of the respective sections of the Judicial Code gives exclusive jurisdiction in this matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

All the employees are county employees and 42 Pa.C.S. § 933(a)(l)(vii) clearly indicates common pleas jurisdiction. The majority concludes likewise but goes a step further. I believe that the majority misconstrues the language and intent by bringing in the jurisdiction of this court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 102.

Accordingly, I would quash the appeal.

COLINS, J., joins in this dissent.

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.