Opinion
Argued March 13, 1985
October 3, 1985.
Labor law — Membership in bargaining unit — Unit clarification — Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563 — Scope of appellate review — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Arbitrariness — Community of interest — Over-fragmentization.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of a determination of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in a unit clarification matter is to determine whether findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether conclusions are reasonable, rather than arbitrary, capricious or illegal. [147]
2. Provisions of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, require that public employes must have an identifiable community interest to be included within the same bargaining unit, and once the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board decides on the basis of substantial evidence that a bookkeeper and secretary do not have the requisite community of interest with drivers, mechanics and bus washers, the Board need not consider whether this result would involve an over-fragmentization problem. [147-8]
Argued March 13, 1985, before President Judge CRAMLISH, JR., and Judges CRAIG, MacPHAIL, DOYLE, BARRY, COLINS and PALLADINO.
Appeals, Nos. 259 C.D. 1984 and 304 C.D. 1984, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County in case of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local No. 89 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, New Castle Area Transit Authority, Intervenor, No. 90 of 1983.
Petition for unit clarification filed with Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board by union seeking to include two positions into bargaining unit. One position included and one excluded from unit. Union filed exceptions to order. Exceptions dismissed. Union filed petition for review in Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County. Excluded position ordered included. CAIAZZA. Board and employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed.
Ernest B. Orsaitt, with him, Frank G. Verterano, Gamble, Verterano, Mojock, Piccione Green, for appellant, New Castle Area Transit Authority.
John B. Newrohr, with him, Allen L. Palmer, James L. Crawford and Kathryn Speaker MacNett, for appellant, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.
Joseph C. Farina, for appellee, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 89.
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) and the New Castle Area Transit Authority (Authority) appeal a Lawrence County Common Pleas Court order holding that a dispatcher/secretary should be included in the bargaining unit of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 898 (Union). We reverse.
The Board's and the Authority's appeals were consolidated by an Order of this Court dated February 21, 1984.
On April 6, 1982, the Union sought to include the position, dispatcher/secretary, into an existing twenty-two member bargaining unit composed of drivers, mechanics and bus washers employed by the Authority. The dispatcher/secretary position was held by Rosalie Costa. After a hearing, the examiner held that Costa should be excluded from the unit. The Board affirmed and held that Costa lacked a community of interest with the preexisting unit of blue collar employees. The Board found that Costa's duties were primarily secretarial/clerical. The common pleas court reversed and held that the Board erred as a matter of law by relying on the effects of community of interest rather than over-fragmentization.
Also, at this time, the Union sought to include the position of dispatcher/janitor (James Copple) into the bargaining unit. The Board included this position in the unit because Copple's duties were primarily janitorial and he had an identifiable community of interest with the other blue collar members of the unit. Our review of the record reveals that Costa performed the same dispatching duties as Copple only for a short period of time. The inclusion of Copple in the unit is not a part of this appeal.
The Board and the Authority contend that the common pleas court erred as a matter of law in considering over-fragmentization since Costa and the existing Union members did not share a community of interest. We agree.
Section 604(1) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA) provides:
Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P. S. § 1101.604.
The board shall determine the appropriateness of a unit which shall be the public employer unit or a subdivision thereof. In determining the appropriateness of the unit, the board shall:
(1) Take into consideration but shall not be limited to the following:
(i) public employes must have an identifiable community of interest, and
(ii) the effects of over-fragmentization. (Emphasis added.)
In reviewing the Board's application of Section 604 of PLRA, this Court must rely upon the expertise of the Board in this specialized field to weigh and determine the facts. The School District, Township of Millcreek v. Millcreek Education Association, 64 Pa. Commw. 389, 391-2, 440 A.2d 673, 674 (1982). This Court's scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the conclusions are reasonable, and not arbitrary, capricious or illegal. Id.
Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of a lack of community of interest between Costa and the pre-existing unit. The evidence discloses that Costa's primary duties were those of a bookkeeper and secretary. In this "white collar" position, she in effect acted as a liaison between the drivers and the management.
The evidence discloses that Costa's duties include typing and answering the phone for the Transit Coordinator; typing for the General Manager when needed; recording mechanics' time if the foreman is on vacation; recording prices for parts; executing purchase orders; checking in drivers; giving drivers change, transfers and passes; recording drivers' time for the payroll; posting the drivers' schedules and vacations; recording revenues for each run; and recording transit accident reports and sending the reports to the insurance company.
The Union contends that Section 604 mandates consideration of both the community of interest and the over-fragmentization effects. We disagree.
If the Board's finding that the proposed new members lack an identifiable community of interest with the existing membership is supported by substantial evidence, then any contention regarding over-fragmentization is without foundation. Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 34 Pa. Commw. 239, 383 A.2d 243 (1978).
We hold that the common pleas court erred as a matter of law in concluding that a dispatcher/secretary should be included in the Union's bargaining unit.
The Board and the Authority also contend that the common pleas court erred as a matter of law in holding that the effects of over-fragmentization outweighed the finding of lack of community of interest despite the Board's decision not to consider the over-fragmentization issue. Because this Court is reversing the trial court, we need not address the Board's and the Authority's request, in the alternative, for a remand.
Reversed.
ORDER
The Lawrence County Common Pleas Court order, No. 90 of 1983 dated January 11, 1984, is reversed.