Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alcaraz v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 21, 1998No. 0014 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997Published

1DissentZappala, Justice

Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Borough of Palo Alto had a duty to engage in collective bargaining with its single-member police department, I dissent.

I agree that an employee in a one person department, like Appellant, is entitled to designate a representative to act for him in negotiating his employment contract. As set forth by the majority, the Ninth Circuit, in discussing the National Labor Relations Act, has noted that the right of a single employee to designate a representative to act for him is in no way limited since this right existed prior to the NLRA’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Philadelphia Fire Officers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Beck Engineering & Surveying Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  3. Borough of Nazareth v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Alcaraz v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API