IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 33, AFL-CIO, Herman J. Matthews, Jr., Troy A. Brown, Kenneth Golden, Kathryn Farley, Maryann Yost, Joe Ebron, Reba Clincy, Cynthia Newkirk, Tracy Higgins, Christina E. Harper, and Andrea Chaney, Appellants v. City of Philadelphia, Mayor Michael No. 748 C.D Nutter, and Albert L. D'Atillio Submitted February 11, 2013 BEFORE HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED April 23, 2013 The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 33 (Union 33) 1 appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (common pleas court) that entered summary judgment in favor of the City of Philadelphia (City) and denied Union 33 s crossmotion for summary judgment. 1 Union 33 is one of the City of Philadelphia s four major bargaining units. Union 33 represents non-professional employees. District Council 47 represents professional employees and first line supervisors. FOP Lodge 5 represents the City s police officers. Last, Local 22 represents the City s firefighters.

2 alleged On June 6, 2011, the City petitioned for summary judgment and The union and the City are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that governs the wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment for the union s members, which include all but one of the individual plaintiffs. 3. Plaintiffs [2] complaint claims that the defendants [City] violated the City s Home Rule Charter and Civil Service Regulations when they froze or discontinued all longevity pay [3] and earned step increases [4] allegedly due to the union s members. 4. These pay increases were negotiated by the union and the City in a series of collective bargaining agreements ( CBAs ). 5. The bargained-for-wage increases were also memorialized in Civil Service Regulation ( Earned Pay Step Increases ) and ( Longevity Pay for District Council 33 Representation Classes ). 6. The most recent CBA expired on June 30, On July 6, 2009, the City announced that it would not process or pay any further salary increases, including Earned Step Increases and increases in Longevity Pay, during the period when there is no contract in 2 In its motion for summary judgment, Union 33 refers to itself either as Plaintiffs or union. 3 Longevity pay is applicable where an employee receives an additional pay increase after completing five years of service with the City, and further longevity increments for each five years of service that follows. 4 Earned step increases is applicable where an employee receives a pay increase once a year if that employee meets service and work performance requirements. 2

3 place in order [t]o maintain the status quo under the law as of June 30, In tandem with this announcement, the Civil Service Regulations were amended. Regulation announced that non-represented employees would not receive any step or longevity increases until a declaration is made by the Mayor that the City s fiscal situation is sufficiently stable to allow for reinstating such payments.... Regulation explicitly stated that [t]he rights of represented employees shall be determined by the applicable collective bargaining agreement and state law. 9. Plaintiffs are not entitled to pay increases because wage increases are subject to mandatory bargaining and are not part of the status quo. Fairview Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 539, , 454 A.2d 517, 521 (1982). 10. Furthermore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practice charges Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because they have an adequate remedy at law.... Defendant City of Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter, and Albert L. D Atillio s Motion for Summary Judgment, June 6, 2011, Paragraphs 2-11 at 1-3; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 0051a-0053a. Union 33 filed an answer to the City s motion for summary judgment and denied among other things that the Complaint did not allege the commission of an unfair labor practice, and, accordingly, no unfair labor practice charge was filed.... Plaintiffs Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross 3

4 Motion for Summary Judgment, July 8, 2011, Paragraph 10 at 2; R.R. at 0079a. Union 33 also asserted in its cross-motion for summary judgment that 13. The City has not amended the Civil Service Regulations to authorize the freezing of increased longevity and step increases that have been in effect since July 2009, as far as the City employees represented by AFSCME District Council 33 are concerned. 14. Because those payments have not been lawfully frozen... Plaintiffs are entitled to Summary Judgment in their favor, granting the relief requested in this case. Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Paragraphs 13 and 14 at 2; R.R. at 0079a. The common pleas court entered summary judgment in favor of the City and denied Union 33 s cross-motion for summary judgment. The common pleas court concluded Regardless of what remained of Civil Service Regulations and after the expiration of the CBA, Plaintiffs [Union 33] are not entitled to continued step and longevity increases because Interim Regulation [5] validly amended the City s Civil Service 5 Regulation provides in its entirety Effective July 6, 2009, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Regulations No earned pay step increase or increase in longevity payment will be paid to any non-represented employee until a declaration is made by the Mayor that the City s fiscal situation is sufficiently stable to allow for reinstating such payments. Upon a declaration by the Mayor at any time in the future that the City s fiscal situation makes payment of earned step increases or increases in longevity payments fiscally unsound, no earned step increases or increases in longevity payments shall be paid as of the effective date of such a declaration until such a declaration is lifted by order of the Mayor. The rights of represented employees shall (Footnote continued on next page ) 4

5 Regulations. The meaning of Interim Regulation is that the general law of Pennsylvania controls the rights of the parties, and that law permits the City to freeze steps and longevity increases during a status quo period. Opinion of the Common Pleas Court, April 3, 2012, at 4. Before this Court 6, Union 33 essentially contends 7 that pursuant to the City s Civil Service Regulation the common pleas court unlawfully froze longevity pay and pay step increases guaranteed to Union 33 s members under the CBA. (continued ) be determined by the applicable collective bargaining agreement and state law. (emphasis added). 6 This Court s review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment is limited to a determination of whether the common pleas court erred as a matter of law or committed an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Summary judgment is warranted where the pleadings, depositions, discovery responses and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jones v. Chieffo, 549 Pa. 46, 700 A.2d 417 (1977). Any doubt as to the right to summary relief must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Department of Education, 609 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). 7 Specifically, Union 33 argues in its Statement of Question Involved Philadelphia s Civil Service Regulations contain provisions requiring the payments of longevity pay and pay step increases to District Council 33 members employed by the City. A Civil Service Regulation passed in July 2009 stated the rights of employees represented by District Council 33 shall be determined by... state law, but did not explicitly change the pay plan containing the requirements for paying longevity and step increases. Regulations have the force and effect of law and must be strictly adhered to. Has the City lawfully frozen longevity and pay step increases of D.C. 33 members? Brief of Appellants, Statement of Questions Involved at 3. 5

6 This issue was raised and argued before the common pleas court and ably disposed of in the opinion of the Honorable Idee C. Fox. Therefore, this Court shall affirm on the basis of that opinion. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 33, AFL-CIO, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter, and Albert L. D Atillio, (May Term 2010, No. 4048), filed April 3, Accordingly, this Court affirms. BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 6

7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 33, AFL-CIO, Herman J. Matthews, Jr., Troy A. Brown, Kenneth Golden, Kathryn Farley, Maryann Yost, Joe Ebron, Reba Clincy, Cynthia Newkirk, Tracy Higgins, Christina E. Harper, and Andrea Chaney, Appellants v. City of Philadelphia, Mayor Michael No. 748 C.D Nutter, and Albert L. D'Atillio O R D E R AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2013, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the above-captioned case is affirmed. BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge