Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 16, 2014Published

1DissentJustice Eakin

I respectfully dissent, as I find maintenance mechanics do not qualify as prison guards. As the majority points out, the term “guards at prisons” is not defined under any section of the Public Employe Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101 et seq., and, as a clear and unambiguous term, it must be construed according to its “common and approved usage[.]” See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a); see also id., § 1921(b). I agree with the majority’s determination that, by using the plain language “guards at prisons,” the legislature intended a meaning more expansive than traditional notions of uniformed correctional…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API