## Facts

- The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) provided public transit service in the Pittsburgh area.
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 was the certified bargaining representative for approximately 2,700 PAT employees.
- PAT and Local 85’s collective bargaining agreement expired on November 30, 1991; successor negotiations began in October 1991 but did not result in an agreement.
- On March 16, 1992, Local 85 began a strike that halted public transit service.
- The Mayor of Pittsburgh and the City filed an equity action seeking to enjoin the strike and requested extraordinary relief invoking the Supreme Court’s plenary jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and designated a judge to conduct hearings and issue findings and a decree.
- After three days of testimony, the hearing judge found overwhelming evidence that the strike caused severe traffic congestion and impaired emergency response by police, fire, and ambulances.
- The hearing judge found that some people could not reach medical facilities for necessary care and that emergency vehicles experienced delays.
- The hearing judge found significant disruption to commuting, including people walking long distances and arranging temporary housing near work, school, or childcare.
- The hearing judge concluded the strike had far-reaching effects on commercial, academic, medical, and social institutions, and that contrary evidence did not rebut these impacts.

## Issues

1. Whether the City had standing and capacity to seek an injunction against a public-employee transit strike.
2. Whether the strike created a clear and present danger, or immediate and irreparable harm, to public health, safety, and welfare sufficient to justify injunctive relief.
3. Whether the decree’s remedies—enjoining the work stoppage and directing continued negotiations under court supervision (and related restrictions)—were within the court’s equitable authority.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decree enjoining the strike.
- The Court held the City had standing to seek equitable relief to protect residents when public health, safety, and welfare are threatened.
- The Court accepted the hearing judge’s findings that the strike posed a clear and present danger and would cause immediate and irreparable harm if it continued.
- The Court upheld the equitable relief requiring continued bargaining under court supervision as part of the remedy designed to protect the public while bargaining continued.

## Legal Principles

- Public-employee strike activity permitted under PERA may be enjoined when it threatens public health, safety, or welfare.
- Courts may grant injunctive relief against a public-employee strike upon a showing of a clear and present danger and immediate, irreparable harm to the public.
- A municipality responsible for public welfare has standing to seek equitable relief even when the striking employees are employed by a separate public authority.
- When a vital public service disruption crosses from economic pressure to public danger, courts may intervene and structure remedies that both restore service and require continued bargaining.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an injunction against a public-transit strike because the evidence showed the stoppage created a clear and present danger to public health, safety, and welfare, and it confirmed that the City could seek equitable relief to protect residents while negotiations proceeded under court oversight.


Masloff v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 531 Pa. 416, 613 A.2d 1186 (Pa. 1992)