Opinion
Argued November 7, 1973
March 5, 1974.
Labor dispute — Public Employe Relations Act, Act 1970, July 23, P. L. 563 — Words and phrases — Public employer — County Salary Board.
1. The County Salary Board is not the public employer of court-related employes in a county within the meaning of the Public Employe Relations Act, Act 1970, July 23, P. L. 563.
Judge MENCER flied a dissenting opinion in which Judges CRUMLISH, JR. and KRAMER joined, which was substantially as follows:
1. Only in matters relating to collective bargaining with respect to wages may county governments be deemed to be the public employer of court-related employes and in all other respects the judicial district must be considered to be the public employer.
Argued November 7, 1973, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT.
Appeal, No. 20 Tr. Dkt. 1973, from the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in case of In the Matter of the Employees of Washington County, No. PERA-R-2209-W. Transferred to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, September 10, 1973.
Petition with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board for representation certification. Petition granted. Protestants appealed. Held: Affirmed.
Frank C. Roney, for appellant.
Raymond W. Cromer, Assistant Attorney General, with him James F. Wildeman, Assistant Attorney General, Francis A. Zulli, Assistant Attorney General, and James L. Crawford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In this appeal, appellant, county controller asserts that the County Salary Board of which he is a member is the public employer of the employees of the county within the meaning of the Act.
For the reason set forth in our opinion handed down this day in Sweet v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 12 Pa. Commw. 358, 316 A.2d 665 (1974), we believe this appeal to be without merit.
ORDER
NOW, March 5, 1974, the order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board from which the above appeal is taken is affirmed.
For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion filed this day in Sweet v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 12 Pa. Commw. 358, 316 A.2d 665 (1974), I would reverse the Order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and remand this case for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissenting opinion filed in Sweet.
Judges CRUMLISH, JR. and KRAMER join in this dissent.