Best, D. v. United Steel ( 2019 )

J-A03028-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DENNIS BEST, GREGORY S. MILLER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
JOSEPH BRUNO, ROBERT LANSHCAK, : PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC A. GARRETT, RICHARD :
SCHENKER, ROBERT M. YEAGER, :
BRUCE ROSA, ANTHONY TEDESCO, :
RENEE MILLER, HEIDI A. KIZAK, :
MARY LOU WILSON, PATRICIA :
NAPOLITAN, CORY BECK, RICHARD :
ARTHUR, RYAN LECHNER, DAVID J. : No. 1111 WDA 2018
DEVENNEY, CHAD ROWE, BENJAMIN :
SHARPER, LUANN IACINO, AND :
ANTHONY VENDILLI :
:
Appellants :
:
:
v. :
:
:
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND :
FORESTRY, RUBBER, :
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED :
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE :
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION :
A/K/A UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF :
AMERICA AND THE COUNTY OF :
MERCER
Appeal from the Order Entered July 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Civil Division at No(s):
2017-1411
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 23, 2019
Appellants, Dennis Best, et al., appeal from the order sustaining the
preliminary objections filed by Appellees, United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A03028-19
International Union a/k/a United Steel Workers of America (“USW”) and the
County of Mercer (“Mercer County”). Because the appeal is within the
jurisdiction of our sister appellate court, we order that the appeal be
transferred to the Commonwealth Court.
The trial court set forth the history of this case as follows:
[Appellants] are all present and past employees of the
Mercer County Sheriff’s Department. In 1996, the employees of
the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department sought to form a public
employee union which was to be represented by USW, having the
name of USW Local Union No. 1355. While employed by the
Mercer County Sheriff’s Department, each of the [Appellants]
executed a USW Check-Off Authorization which authorized Mercer
County to deduct union dues from their pay each month while
each [Appellant] was “in employment with the collective
bargaining unit in the employer.” The individual check-off
authorizations were executed by each [Appellant] at the time of
their initial employment with the Mercer County Sheriff’s
Department, were identical in their form, and authorized Mercer
County to remit the deducted dues to the USW.
This labor union was never certified by the Pennsylvania
Labor Relations Board (‘‘PLRB”), however, as a collective
bargaining unit. The Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act1
[(“PERA”)] requires certification of any collective bargaining unit
by the PLRB before it becomes official. Both [Appellees] were
informed by the PLRB that their attempt to certify the employees
of the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department as a collective
bargaining unit had been denied. However, even with that
knowledge, [Appellees] negotiated and entered into numerous
collective bargaining agreements between 1996 and 2016. Also
during that time, [Appellee] Mercer County deducted union dues
from the pay of [Appellants], and remitted the dues to [Appellee]
USW.
1Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, art. I, § 101
et seq; 43 P.S. 1101.101 et seq. (Supp. 1974-75)
-2-
J-A03028-19
Trial Court Opinion, 7/9/18, at unnumbered 2–3.
Appellants initiated this matter with the filing of a praecipe for writ of
summons on May 9, 2017. Appellants filed their complaint on February 23,
2018. On March 15, 2018, both Appellees filed preliminary objections, which
alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case,
because the matter should have been before the PLRB pursuant to the PERA.
USW’s Brief in Support of Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, at 3;
Mercer County’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Brief, at
13. Appellants filed a brief in opposition to the preliminary objections on May
1, 2018. On July 9, 2018, the trial court sustained Appellees’ preliminary
objections. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on August 7, 2018. The
trial court did not order Appellants to file a statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
Appellants present the following questions for our review:
I. Whether the trial court erred in holding that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to entertain the individual breach of
contract claims asserted by the appellants against the
county in light of the facts and holding in the case of
Hollinger v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 365 A.2d 1245 (Pa.
1976)?
II. Whether the trial court erred in holding that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to entertain the individual breach of duty
of fair representation claims asserted by appellants against
the USW in light of the facts and holding in the case of Case
v. Hazleton Area Educational Personnel Ass’n, 928 A.2d
1154 (Pa. Cmnwlth. Ct. 2007)?
Appellants’ Brief at 3.
-3-
J-A03028-19
Before we consider the issues raised by Appellants in their brief, we
must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this matter or whether to
transfer the case to Commonwealth Court.1 Specifically, it appears that
jurisdiction lies with the Commonwealth Court pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 762.
That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 762. Appeals from courts of common pleas
(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals
from final orders of the courts of common pleas in the following
cases:
***
4) Local government civil and criminal matters.
(i) All actions or proceedings arising
under any municipality, institution
district, public school, planning or zoning
code or under which a municipality or
other political subdivision or municipality
authority may be formed or incorporated
or where is drawn in question the
____________________________________________
1 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 751 addresses the transfer of
erroneously filed cases and states as follows:
(a) General rule. If an appeal or other matter is taken to
or brought in a court or magisterial district which does not
have jurisdiction of the appeal or other matter, the court or
magisterial district judge shall not quash such appeal or
dismiss the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to
the proper court of this Commonwealth, where the appeal or
other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in transferee
court on the date first filed in a court or magisterial district.
Pa.R.A.P. 751(a) (emphases added).
-4-
J-A03028-19
application, interpretation or
enforcement of any:
(A) statute regulating the
affairs of political
subdivisions, municipality
and other local authorities
or other public
corporations or of the
officers, employees or
agents thereof, acting in
their official capacity[.]
42 Pa.C.S. § 762(a)(4)(i)(A) (emphases added).
We are mindful this Court has explained that where neither party has
objected to our jurisdiction of an appeal, we may exercise jurisdiction pursuant
to 42 Pa.C.S. § 704(a)2 and Pa.R.A.P. 741(a).3 However, we also “retain the
____________________________________________
2 Section 704 of the Judicial Code provides, in relevant part, as follows:
§ 704. Waiver of objections to jurisdiction.
(a) General rule. — The failure of an appellee to file an objection
to the jurisdiction of an appellate court within such time as may
be specified by general rule, shall, unless the appellate court
otherwise orders, operate to perfect the appellate jurisdiction of
such appellate court, notwithstanding any provision of this title,
or of any general rule adopted pursuant to section 503 (relating
to reassignment of matters), vesting jurisdiction of such appeal in
another appellate court.
42 Pa.C.S. § 704(a).
3 Rule 741 is based on 42 Pa.C.S. § 704, and states, in part, as follows:
Rule 741. Waiver of Objections to Jurisdiction.
-5-
J-A03028-19
power and, indeed, the responsibility to determine whether retention of
jurisdiction in this case is appropriate or, alternatively, whether the matter
should be transferred to the Commonwealth Court.” Wilson v. School
District of Philadelphia, 600 A.2d 210, 211 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citations
omitted). Furthermore, once we have:
concluded that this matter is within the Commonwealth Court’s
jurisdiction, it is within our discretion to determine whether
transfer to that court is appropriate. In making this
determination, we conduct a case-by-case analysis. We may
retain jurisdiction if such action would serve the interests of
judicial economy, but should transfer the matter if to do so would
serve other interests, such as avoiding the establishment of
possibly conflicting lines of authority.
Id. at 213 (citations omitted). As we have long stated, “we should be most
cautious in assuming jurisdiction over matters that properly belong before the
Commonwealth Court.” Lara, Inc., v. Dorney Park Coaster Co., Inc., 534
A.2d 1062, 1066 (Pa. Super. 1987).
It is undisputed that the instant case is a civil matter that involves a
political subdivision, i.e. Mercer County, and encompasses a dispute with
employees of the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department. Moreover, the
____________________________________________
(a) General rule. The failure of an appellee to file an objection
to the jurisdiction of an appellate court on or prior to the last day
under these rules for the filing of the record shall, unless the
appellate court shall otherwise order, operate to perfect the
appellate jurisdiction of such appellate court, notwithstanding any
provision of law vesting jurisdiction of such appeal in another
appellate court.
Pa.R.A.P. 741(a).
-6-
J-A03028-19
overarching issue presented in Appellants’ complaint involves an alleged
violation of the PERA relative to the withholding of union dues from Appellants’
monthly pay. The PERA’s public policy declaration states that the purpose of
the act is to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public
employers and their employees. 43 P.S. § 1101.101. Consequently, the PERA
governs the collective bargaining process between all public employers and
public employees. Indeed, the PERA, passed in 1970, gave rank-and-file
public employees the right to be represented by unions, to negotiate
contracts, and to strike in the event of an impasse. Curley v. Board of
School Directors, 641 A.2d 719, 724-725 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
Here, our review reflects that jurisdiction is properly vested in the
Commonwealth Court pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 762(a)(2)(ii) because the
matter draws into question the applicability, interpretation, or enforcement of
the PERA. Our further analysis indicates the preferable course in this matter
is to transfer the appeal to the Commonwealth Court. Indeed, the
Commonwealth Court’s expertise in this area is apparent because the relevant
case law cited by Appellants reveals the Commonwealth Court has historically
entertained appeals in similar matters. Accordingly, we transfer this appeal.
Appeal transferred to Commonwealth Court.
-7-
J-A03028-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/23/2019
-8-