By Ernest B. Orsatti, Esquire
After a contentious meeting between the Union President and the Company’s HR Director regarding safety issues, the Union President sent an email to the Company’s Executive Director, copying the HR Director, regarding her conduct. A week later, the Union President was notified a complaint was made against him and an attorney was hired to investigate the complaint.
The Union requested a copy of the formal complaint. The Company kept insisting that it was not obliged to provide the complaint triggering an investigation unless disciplinary action is taken. (In this case, it was not). Union Counsel responded that Union is entitled to the complaint because it relates to a member of the union’s bargaining unit and there may be cause to file a grievance for a false complaint.
The Union filed a Charge of Unfair Practices with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) and after the hearing, the PLRB Hearing Examiner found the Company had violated Sections 1201(a)(1) and (5) of the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA) by refusing to comply with an information request made by the Union and issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO).
The Company challenged the PDO. Upon review, the PLRB decided that the Hearing Examiner properly concluded that the Union had met the burden of proving the Company had violated Sections 1201(a)(1) and (5). The exceptions filed by the Company were dismissed and PDO was made final – the Company had to comply and ultimately did comply.
What does this mean? Multiple times, the Union requested information under the Collective Bargaining Act (CBA) and PERA to determine if the Company’s HR director had made false allegations against the Union President after a contentious meeting regarding safety issues. The Company refused to provide the information. When they were ordered to provide the information by a Hearing Officer, the Company filed exceptions. Ultimately, the PLRB upheld the findings of the Hearing Officer and validated the Union’s request for information.
