## Facts

- The Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) employed housing police officers represented by the Philadelphia Housing Police Association (Union) under a collective-bargaining agreement that expired March 31, 1990 and was extended to April 30, 1990.
- Between mid-March and June 1, 1990, PHA and the Union held multiple bargaining sessions and mediation meetings and reached tentative agreements conditioned on a complete final agreement.
- On June 1, 1990, PHA presented a “final offer” that included changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining, including wages, pensions, and reduced no-cost medical plan options effective August 1, 1990.
- On June 3, 1990, the Union rejected PHA’s proposal, and on July 10, 1990, it submitted a counterproposal with substantial differences (including higher wages and a shorter contract term).
- In mid-July 1990, PHA notified the mediator and the Union that negotiations had been at impasse for weeks and that it would implement its June 1 proposal effective August 1, 1990; PHA then unilaterally implemented those terms.
- The Union did not strike and filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging violations of PERA § 1201(a)(1) and (5) based on unilateral changes and failure to bargain in good faith.
- A hearing examiner found an impasse and concluded unilateral implementation was lawful; the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) adopted the impasse finding but held unilateral implementation unlawful.
- The court of common pleas reversed the PLRB; the PLRB appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a public employer governed by PERA may unilaterally implement its final offer on mandatory subjects of bargaining after contract expiration upon reaching an impasse.
2. Whether unilateral implementation of changes to wages and benefits after expiration constitutes an unfair labor practice under PERA § 1201(a)(1) and (5), notwithstanding a factual impasse.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court reversed the court of common pleas and reinstated the PLRB’s order.
- The court held that PERA does not permit a public employer to unilaterally implement changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining after expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement, even if negotiations are at impasse.
- The court concluded PHA’s unilateral changes to wages, pensions, and health insurance violated PERA § 1201(a)(1) and (5).

## Legal Principles

- Under PERA, a public employer has a continuing duty to bargain in good faith after contract expiration and must maintain the status quo on mandatory subjects of bargaining until changed by agreement or authorized statutory procedures.
- Federal private-sector “impasse implementation” doctrine under the NLRA does not control PERA, given differences in statutory structure and remedial mechanisms in public employment.
- A factual finding of impasse does not, by itself, authorize unilateral changes by a PERA public employer to mandatory bargaining subjects.
- Courts give substantial deference to the PLRB’s reasonable interpretation of PERA as the agency charged with its administration and enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court held that PERA requires public employers to maintain existing terms and conditions on mandatory bargaining subjects after contract expiration and bars unilateral implementation of a final offer, even when the parties have reached an impasse; PHA’s unilateral changes therefore constituted an unfair labor practice.


Philadelphia Hous. Auth. v. Pa. Lab. Rels. Bd., 620 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993)