Commonwealth Court Cases - Commonwealth Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

þÿ

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DALTON POLICE ASSOCIATION, :
Petitioner
::
v.
: NO. 1321 C.D. 2000
: ARGUED: December 4, 2000
PENNSYLVANIA LABOR
:
RELATIONS BOARD,
:
Respondent
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Judge
HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge
HONORABLE EMIL E. NARICK, Senior Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE PELLEGRINI
FILED: January 11, 2001
Dalton Police Association (Association) appeals from an order of the
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) finding that James Gray, the Chief of
Police of Dalton Borough (Chief), as a managerial employee was excluded from
the collective bargaining unit certified by the Board to represent police officers
under Act 111.
On October 20, 1999, the Association filed a petition for
representation with the Board pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Pennsylvania Labor
Relations Act1 and Act 111 of 19682 seeking to represent a bargaining unit of all

1Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, as amended, 43 P.S. §211.7(c), provides as follows:
(c) Whenever a question arises concerning the representation of
employees the board may, and, upon request of a labor
organization, or an employer who has not committed an act herein
defined as unfair labor practice, or any group of employes in an
appropriate unit representing by petition thirty per centum or more
of the employes of that unit, shall investigate such controversy and
certify to the parties, in writing, the name or names of the
(Footnote continued on next page...)

non-managerial police employees which was to include the full-time chief of
police position. The Dalton Borough Police Department consisted of five officers,
including the Chief, who was its only full-time employee. Because Dalton
Borough (Borough) did not agree that the chief of police should be part of the
bargaining unit, the Board heard evidence to determine whether the Borough's
chief of police position was managerial in nature.3

(continued...)
representatives who have been designated or selected. In any such
investigation, the board shall provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice, either in conjunction with a proceeding under
section eight, or otherwise, and may utilize any suitable method to
ascertain such representatives, except that if either party to the
controversy so requests, a secret ballot of employes shall be taken
within twenty days after such request is filed. Any certification of
representatives by the board shall be binding for a period of one
year, or for a longer period if the contract so provides, even though
the unit may have changed its labor organization membership.
2 Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. §§217.1--217.10. Although Act
111 does not contain detailed provisions for the selection of a bargaining representative, our
Supreme Court has held that Act 111 is to be read in pari materia with the Pennsylvania Labor
Relations Act. Philadelphia Fire Officers Assoc. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 470
Pa. 550, 369 A.2d 259 (1977).
3 On November 9, 1999, the Secretary of the Board issued an order and notice of hearing
in which the matter was assigned to a pre-hearing conference to resolve the matters in dispute
through mutual agreement of the parties. Because the parties could not reach a resolution as to
the disputed matters, a hearing was conducted on December 16, 1999. As to the issues before
the hearing examiner, in addition to the issue of whether the Chief was to be included in the
bargaining unit, a separate issue in dispute was whether a part-time position held by Officer
Leonard Kowalski was a regular part-time position as defined by the Board. Because this issue
has no bearing on the instant action, it will not be addressed in the Court's opinion.
2

Contending that the chief of police was a manager, the Borough
offered the testimony of Susan Stacknich, the Borough's Secretary/Treasurer,
whose responsibilities included the processing of payroll for the police department.
As to payroll, Ms. Stacknich stated that prior to the Borough's implementation of a
time clock, the Chief provided her with time sheets for each part-time police
officer that were filled out and signed by him. In addition, he would submit a
month-end calendar for himself. However, since time clocks were instituted, the
Chief's main involvement with payroll was to clear up any discrepancies on the
time card with regard to differing duties performed by officers during their hourly
shifts that would, in turn, affect their pay scale. Moreover, she stated that although
the Chief was a salaried employee, he, too, was required to punch the time clock
and was paid compensation time for any hours worked over the 40-hour work
week.
Lorraine M. Daniels, vice president of Borough Council and
chairperson of the Finance Committee and member of the Safety Committee,
testified as to the Chief's responsibilities in preparing the police department's
budget, purchasing and personnel. She testified that the Chief submitted a line
item budget to the Finance Committee for review, and that the Finance Committee
has never changed or rejected a budget that the Chief has submitted. Further, she
testified that the Chief was able to make purchases as listed on the line item budget
without prior Borough Council approval. As to the Chief's participation in the
hiring of police personnel, Ms. Daniels testified that the Chief collected resumes
which he and the Mayor reviewed and subsequently made recommendations to the
3

Safety Committee. Ms. Daniels noted that the Chief's recommendations were
always approved by the Safety Committee.
The current Mayor of Dalton Borough, John Hobert, testified as to his
interactions with the Chief while serving as the liaison between the police
department and the Borough Council. He testified that although he was not
directly involved in the scheduling process, he received the schedule for the police
department as prepared by the Chief based on his position as the liaison between
the police department and Borough Council. Moreover, the Mayor testified that he
deferred to the Chief's judgement concerning the budgetary needs of the police
department and the Chief was able to purchase what he needed. In addition, the
Mayor stated that on one occasion, the Chief had asked him if he could purchase
tires at which time the Mayor deferred to the Chief's judgment and granted his
request. The Chief had also asked to purchase a VASCAR unit (a speed detection
device) from grant monies which the Mayor approved without prior approval from
Borough Council.
Contending that the chief of police's position was not managerial in
nature and should be included in the bargaining unit, the Association presented the
testimony of former Mayor Daniel Ranlet, who was appointed to Borough Council
in 1989 and served as Mayor from 1992 until July 1999. Mr. Ranlet stated that
because of manpower shortages, the Chief had worked a significant amount of
overtime, and to correct this, the Mayor sought more money from Borough
Counsel to increase personnel for the police department. Further, because of his
concern over the Chief working long hours, he required the Chief to seek approval
4

for overtime hours. Mr. Ranlet also testified that he always deferred to the Chief
with regard to the placement of officers and on only one occasion directed the
Chief to change staff positioning. As to the budgetary process, Mr. Ranlet stated
that the Chief would submit a proposed budget that they would review together.
Mr. Ranlet also noted that the Chief was able to purchase what he needed for the
police department and the Chief only sought his approval on major items. Mr.
Ranlet also noted that there was only one time when he refused the Chief's
purchasing request for a TV/VCR for public relations reasons. Moreover, when
the Borough decided to purchase a new police cruiser, the Chief was responsible
for identifying the car that suited the police department's needs. With respect to
grant monies, Borough Council approval was necessary for expenditures from this
fund. Mr. Ranlet also stated that the Chief was the individual responsible for
informing him as to updates needed in the Police Policy Manual and the Chief
would write these updates which the former Mayor would forward to Borough
Council.
Also, before the hearing examiner, the Chief testified as to his duties.
The Chief stated that he began working as chief of police for the Borough in 1983
and was responsible for the scheduling of all officers under his command. He
further stated that the Mayor informed him to control overtime hours for the force
and that he was required to seek the Mayor's approval if he needed to work
overtime hours. Moreover, when presented with a listing of 21 duties for the chief
of police from the Police Procedure Manual, the Chief stated that he was unsure as
to what a procedure regarding developing new techniques and improving the
effectiveness of the police department involved, and as to the task of preparing and
5

presenting a budget to Borough Council, the Chief stated that he did not perform
that task because he had worked with the Mayor on the budgetary process.4

4 Specifically, the duties of the chief of police as stated in the Police Procedure Manual
are as follows:
1. The enforcement of all rules, regulations, general and special
directives;
2. The organization and control of all resources of the department
for the most efficient use in preserving the peace, the protection of
persons and property, and the enforcement of new laws;
3. The development of an organizational structure of the Police
Department, including accountability of all subordinate officers
with whom areas of responsibility have been vested;
4. The assignment of duties of all officers as well as scheduling of
hours for regular duty;
5. The improvement of employee working conditions to achieve
maximum efficiency and high morals;
6. To advise the Mayor and Borough Council of recommended
revisions to existing ordinances and/or enactment of new
ordinances to benefit the Borough;
7. To formulate continuing training programs for the Police
Department;
8. To develop new techniques and improve the effectiveness of the
Police Department;
9. To recognize the outstanding performance of Officers;
10. To evaluate the Police Officers and affairs of the Police
Department;
11. To provide continual observations of every phase of Police
activity;
12. To advise the Mayor of any incidents or circumstances which
might injure the integrity of the Department;
13. To promote public relations;
14. To release accurate information to the public and to the news
media;
15. To create and maintain an alliance with other governmental
agencies;
16. To conduct periodic meetings with the Department personnel
and to resolve problems and disseminate information;
(Footnote continued on next page...)
6

With respect to disciplining police officers under his command, the
Chief stated that if there was a problem, he would sit the officer down and
reprimand them, but if the situation warranted more, the Mayor would become
involved. The Chief noted two incidents regarding reprimand that had occurred,
one in which he reprimanded an officer who failed to work a scheduled shift and,
in turn, the officer subsequently resigned. As to the other incident, the Chief
suggested that the Mayor suspend an officer involved in an off-duty shooting
incident at which time the Mayor asked for the officer's suspension.
With respect to the implementation of the Police Procedure Manual,
the Chief stated that he and the former Mayor, Ron Leas, contacted the Department
of Community Affairs for information regarding the manual and he took samples
of model policy information from the information he received. The Chief stated
that he provided the manual to the Mayor for his review, which was subsequently
forwarded to Borough Counsel for approval. 5 In addition to this testimony, the

(continued...)
17. To prepare and present to Borough Council a budget, or budget
estimate which reflects the needs of the Department;
18. To implement and maintain personnel records, including
personnel evaluations;
19. To perform any other such duties as might be assigned by the
Mayor;
20. To discipline subordinate Police Officers and prepare records
in this regard; and
21. To perform all such duties and meet all requirements as set
forth.
5 The Chief could not recall if the Mayor had made changes to the manual when he
presented it to him.
7

Chief noted that there has never been an officer hired without his recommendation,
that he can buy office supplies without prior approval from the Mayor, and that he
was involved with implementing differing police programs for community
awareness and public safety.
Applying the test set forth in Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 20
v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 522 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987),
affirmed, 522 Pa. 149, 560 A.2d 145 (1989) (Star Lodge), the hearing examiner
found that the position of chief of police was managerial in nature because the
Chief exercised independent and effective managerial authority in the areas of
overall personnel administration responsibility, policy formulation and
purchasing.6 Specifically, with respect to overall personnel administration, the

6 In Star Lodge, this Court held that a position should be classified "as managerial when
the named function is affirmatively among the powers of the position, and...supervisory when
the function is absent from those powers." Id. at 704. Accordingly, this Court concluded that if
a position encompasses decisional authority in any of the following areas, that position will be
identified as managerial. These areas included:
Policy Formulation--authority to initiate departmental policies,
including the power to issue general directives and regulations;
Policy Implementation--authority to develop and change
programs of the department;
Overall Personnel Administration Responsibility--as evidenced
by effective involvement in hiring, serious disciplinary actions and
dismissals;
Budget Making--demonstrated effectiveness in the preparation of
proposed budgets, as distinguished from merely making
suggestions with respect to particular items;
(Footnote continued on next page...)
8

hearing examiner found that the Chief exercised managerial prerogatives because
he coordinated all scheduling of part-time officers, was responsible for verifying
payroll for the Borough Secretary/Treasurer, recommended discipline for police
officers as evidenced on two occasions when he recommended suspension for an
officer and on another occasion when he allowed an officer to resign as opposed to
being disciplined or fired. Further, the hearing examiner found that the Chief was
jointly responsible with the Mayor for the hiring of new employees and collected
resumes and made recommendations for new hires which were always honored.
As to the Chief's managerial responsibilities in the area of policy
formulation, the hearing examiner concluded that the Chief exercised managerial
prerogatives here as well because, while working with the Mayor, the Chief
obtained sample manuals from the Department of Community Affairs for the
adoption of a Police Procedure Manual which he subsequently presented to the
Borough Council's Police Committee for approval and recommended additions to
the manual that were approved and made part of the manual.

(continued...)
Purchasing Role--effective role in the purchasing process, as
distinguished from merely making suggestions; and
Independence in Public Relations --as evidenced by authority to
commit departmental resources in dealing with public groups.
Id. at 705.
9

Finally, as to the Chief's managerial role in the area of purchasing, the
hearing examiner found that the Chief exercised managerial prerogatives because
he was independently responsible for purchasing items and materials for the
operation of the police department, and although some requests for purchases were
denied, he purchased such items as automobile tires for police vehicles. Further,
the Chief was responsible for handling the purchase of a new police cruiser and
selected the specifications for this vehicle. In addition, the hearing examiner found
that the Chief purchased items from a crime prevention grant which included a new
VASCAR unit for which the Chief did not obtain prior approval from the Mayor to
purchase.
Upon the hearing examiner's order, the Association filed a list of
employees included in the bargaining unit that the hearing examiner had deemed
appropriate. The Board Representative then issued an order and notice of election
directing an election to be conducted on March 22, 2000, among full and part-time
regular employees of the police department, excluding the Chief. The election was
conducted at which time the appropriate bargaining unit voted in favor of the
Association by a vote of 4-0. The Board Representative then issued a nisi order of
certification, certifying the Association as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the Borough's bargaining unit but excluding the Chief from this unit.
The Association then filed exceptions to the nisi order of certification
alleging that the hearing examiner erred in making various findings of fact and in
concluding that the Chief was excluded from the collective bargaining unit. The
10

Board via final order amended two of the hearing examiner's findings of fact,7 but
concluded that "in the main", the hearing examiner's findings were supported by

7 Finding of Fact No. 14 provided:
The chief is the one person responsible for verifying the payroll to
the Borough Secretary-Treasurer prior to payroll checks being
issued. Sue Stacknich, the Borough Secretary-Treasurer, is the
only paid administrative employe of the Borough.
As amended by the Board, Finding of Fact No. 14 provided:
That prior to September 1999, the chief of police was responsible
for verifying the payroll records of all police officers to the
Borough secretary/treasurer prior to payroll checks being issued.
Sue Stacknich, the Borough secretary/treasurer, is the only paid
administrative employe of the Borough. Since September 1999,
the secretary/treasurer gathers the pay information directly from
the time cards. The chief would inform the Borough
secretary/treasurer in the event an employe required a different pay
scale as a result of time spent either attending court or on duty as
part of a drug task force.
Finding of Fact No. 15 provided:
The chief is responsible for recommending discipline of officers.
As an example of this he was responsible for investigating an
officer who the Chief believed had falsely stated he was working
hours for the Borough. Following the meeting with the officer, the
chief gave him the chance to resign as opposed to being disciplined
or fired.
As amended by the Board, Finding of Fact No. 15 provides:
The chief is responsible for recommending discipline for officers.
For example, the chief arranged a meeting with an officer who
failed to work a scheduled shift for the Borough. At that meeting,
the chief gave the officer the chance to resign as opposed to being
disciplined.
11

substantial evidence of the record and, as such, adopted the hearing examiner's
other findings and conclusion that the chief of police position in the Borough was
managerial under the Star Lodge analysis. The Board dismissed the Association's
exceptions and affirmed the nisi order of certification. This appeal followed.8
The Association contends that the Board erred in excluding the Chief
from the bargaining unit and in concluding that his position met three of the six
indicia of managerial authority established in Star Lodge, because the hearing
examiner's findings of fact, as adopted by the Board, were not supported by
substantial evidence of record. Specifically, the Association asserts that the Board
erred in determining that a chief of police, in a department consisting of five
officers, four of which are part-time, who never issued a single general order, was
not allowed to change a policy or program, who was required to punch a time
clock and could not purchase anything more than office supplies and tires, was a
managerial employee under Act 111.
In determining whether to include certain members of police and fire
departments in the collective bargaining unit under the Star Lodge criteria, it is
more difficult to exclude a position from the collective bargaining unit because
those criteria focus on what discretion is exercised by a person who is occupying a
position in certain areas rather than on the type or number of employees supervised

8 Our scope of review regarding an adjudication of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board is limited to determining whether there was a violation of constitutional rights, whether
there was an error of law, or whether the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence. State System of Higher Education v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 737 A.2d
313 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
12

in the field or the critical nature of those duties. Because even first level
supervisors are not part of the "rank and file" collective bargaining unit under
"normal" labor relations principles,9 the distinction between managerial and
supervisory is not that crucial. Consequently, because supervisors are members of
the "rank and file" collective bargaining unit, in applying the Star Lodge criteria,
we have held that in a fire department with well over 1,000 employees, only three
employees were managerial because the rest of the officers in the department were
classified as supervisory. See City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board, 556 A.2d 928 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Making this analysis even more
difficult is the variety of differing forms of local government which give elected
officials, as is proper, control over the police department. Depending on the type
of person(s) who serve as member(s) of council, supervisor(s) or the Mayor,10 not

9 See West Perry School District v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 752 A.2d 461
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
10 The Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1656, as amended, 53 P.S.
§46121, provides in pertinent part:
Borough council may, subject to the civil service provisions of this
act, if they be in effect at the time, appoint and remove, or suspend,
or reduce in rank, one or more suitable persons, citizens of the
United States of America, as borough policemen, who shall be ex
officio constables of the borough, and shall and may, within the
borough or upon property owned or controlled by the borough or
by a municipal authority of the borough whether such property is
within outside the limits of the borough, without warrant and upon
view, arrest, and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of
breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous or disorderly conduct or
drunkenness, or who may be engaged in the commission of any
unlawful act tending to imperil the personal security or endanger
the property of the citizens, or for violating any ordinance of the
borough for the violation of which a fine or penalty is imposed,
and notwithstanding any statute pertaining to the same or similar
(Footnote continued on next page...)
13

to mention civil service commissions who do the actual selection of candidates, the
chief of police may have more or less control over a police department under the
Star Lodge criteria than other chiefs of police operating in the same or differing
forms of government.

(continued...)
offenses. Any person so arrested shall be received for confinement
by the keepers of the jails, lockups, or station houses within the
county.
The borough council may designate one of said policemen as chief
of police. The mayor of the borough shall have full charge and
control of the chief of police and the police force, and he shall
direct the time during which, the place where and the manner in
which, the chief of police and the police force shall perform their
duties, except that council shall fix and determine the total weekly
hours of employment that shall apply to the policemen.
Policemen shall have authority to serve and execute all criminal
process for the violation of borough ordinances which may be
issued by the mayor, and shall charge the same fees and costs as
constables of the borough, but such fees and costs shall be
collected by the mayor and by him paid into the borough treasury.
The borough may, by ordinance, establish a police department
consisting of chief, captain, lieutenant, sergeants, or any other
classification desired by the council, and council may, subject to
the civil service provisions of this act, if they be in effect at the
time, designate the individuals assigned to each office, but the
mayor shall continue to direct the manner in which the persons
assigned to the office shall perform their duties. The mayor may,
however, delegate to the chief of police or other officers
supervision over and instruction to subordinate officers in the
manner of performing their duties. The mayor may appoint special
policemen during an emergency in which the safety and welfare of
the borough and the public is endangered and auxiliary policemen
may be appointed as provided by general law. [Emphasis added.]
14

While this is a close case, the Board's finding that the Chief exercised
managerial control is supported by the record because there exists substantial
evidence that the Chief had extensive purchasing responsibilities as he could
purchase items without Borough Council's approval, personnel responsibilities
because he recommended who was to be hired, and policymaking functions
because he formulated the Police Procedure Manual, not to mention his day-to-day
control over the interworkings of the police department. Even though, as the
Association points out, there are substantial factors that could support an opposite
finding that the Chief was not a managerial employee and merely a supervisor,
because the Board possesses administrative expertise in the field of public
employee labor relations, we decline to interfere with its judgment where its
conclusions are not arbitrary or capricious, but can reasonably be drawn from facts
supported by the record. West Hanover Township v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board, 646 A.2d 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Moreover, it is also the function of the
Board and not this Court "to resolve conflicts in the evidence presented, to assess
the credibility of witnesses, to resolve primary issues of fact and to draw the
inferences from the facts necessary for a resolution of the complaint." Joint
Bargaining Comm. of the Social Services Union v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Bd., 449 A.2d 96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Accordingly, in light of these well established principles and because
there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that the Chief is a
managerial employee who should be excluded from the collective bargaining unit,
the Board's order is affirmed.
_________________________________
DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE
15

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DALTON POLICE ASSOCIATION, :
Petitioner
::
v.
: NO. 1321 C.D. 2000
:
PENNSYLVANIA LABOR
:
RELATIONS BOARD,
:
Respondent
:
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2001, the Order of the
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board dated May 16, 2000, is affirmed.
_________________________________
DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE