In 2001, Wyoming Borough, Pennsylvania and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) began negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement. The primary issue in the negotiations was the salaries to be paid to three police officers employed on a full-time basis under the terms of a federal grant.
The negotiations were unsuccessful, and on August 27, 2001, the FOP notified the Borough of its intent to proceed to interest arbitration.
In early 2002, a member of the Borough’s Council spoke with one of the three officers about the prospect that the three officers would be retained past the conclusion of 2002, when the federal grant expired. The councilman told the officer that the officers would retain their jobs if they accepted the Borough’s proposal for a contract, and that they would not have their jobs beyond 2002 if they continued to proceed to interest arbitration. Several months later, another member of the Council told the same officer precisely the same thing.
On several other occasions, different Council members indicated that the officers would be laid off if the FOP continued to proceed to arbitration.
On September 9, 2002, an interest arbitration hearing was held. On December 30, 2002, the Council passed a motion to eliminate the positions held by the three police officers. As of that date, the Arbitrator had not yet issued an award.
The FOP filed an unfair labor practice complaint, contending that the layoffs were in retaliation for the FOP’s decision to engage in a protected activity – proceeding to interest arbitration. Pennsylvania’s Labor Relations Board agreed, and ordered the officers reinstated with back pay.
The Board found that “the evidence in the record meets the burden of proving bad faith sufficient to rebut any presumption that Borough officials acted with regularity. The Borough’s willingness to retain the officers under the Borough’s contract terms indicates the Borough’s true motivation for laying off the police officers was in retaliation for invoking binding arbitration. Furthermore, the Borough’s surpluses in it various accounts, its 20 percent pay increase to its manager, and its maintenance of all part-time police officers for 2003 support the conclusion that the elimination of the police officers’ positions was not fiscally motivated.”
The Borough argued that the layoff decision was tied to the expiration of the federal grant money, and that thus it had a legitimate economic reason for the layoffs. The Board was not convinced, concluding “the Borough offered to retain the officers following the expiration of the grant’s provisions, but only on terms of employment offered by the Borough. It was only when they exercised their right to arbitration that the Borough decided to furlough them. Any fiscally responsible action regarding these police officers’ positions would necessarily take into account the circumstances under which the Borough would be required to retain them. Additionally, the Councilmen’s inability to properly explain the Borough’s budgetary surpluses and other financial actions discredit their assertion that their decision was motivated by economic considerations.”
Fraternal Order of Police, Wyoming Valley Lodge No. 36 v. Wyoming Borough, 34 PPER ¶148 (Pa. LRB 2003).