## Facts

- Two unions were the exclusive bargaining representatives for separate groups of Pennsylvania police officers employed by the Commonwealth: state park officers and Capitol/Airport police officers.
- Each union had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Commonwealth that expired on June 30, 2003, with no successor agreement in place.
- The CBAs provided automatic, anniversary-based wage increases:
  - Step increases for officers with fewer years of service; and
  - Longevity payments for officers with more years of service, payable shortly after the anniversary date.
- Before the CBAs expired, the Commonwealth notified the unions it would not process salary increases after expiration.
- After expiration, the Commonwealth froze wages at the levels in effect on June 30, 2003 and did not pay post-expiration step or longevity increases.
- The unions filed unfair labor practice charges with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB), alleging the wage freeze unlawfully changed the status quo and was discriminatory.
- The PLRB Secretary refused to issue a complaint; the Board dismissed the unions’ exceptions and sustained the refusal.
- The unions petitioned for review; the Commonwealth Court consolidated the cases.

## Issues

1. Whether discontinuing post-expiration step increases and longevity payments required by the expired CBAs constituted an unfair labor practice under Act 111 and § 6 of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act.
2. Whether the unions established that the wage freeze was discriminatory or motivated by anti-union animus.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the PLRB’s refusal to issue a complaint.
- The court held the Commonwealth did not commit an unfair labor practice by freezing wages at the levels in effect when the CBAs expired and declining to grant new step or longevity increases during the hiatus.
- The court held the discrimination allegations were properly rejected because the unions did not show anti-union animus or discriminatory motive.

## Legal Principles

- During a post-expiration contract hiatus in Act 111/PLRA public-sector bargaining, maintaining the status quo does not require continuing periodic wage adjustments that would move employees to higher wage levels after the CBA expires.
- An employer may lawfully freeze wages at pre-expiration rates pending a successor agreement without committing an unfair labor practice, so long as it does not implement changes that disturb existing wage rates as of expiration.
- A discrimination-based unfair labor practice claim requires evidence of anti-union motive; adverse economic impact and timing tied to contract expiration, without more, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that freezing wages at the rate in effect when the CBAs expired maintained the lawful status quo and did not obligate the Commonwealth to provide post-expiration step or longevity increases, and it further held that the unions failed to produce evidence supporting a claim of anti-union discrimination.


Pa. State Park Officers Ass’n v. Pa. Lab. Relations Bd., 854 A.2d 674 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004)