Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 23, 2011No. 1804 C.D. 2009Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

The majority concludes that under our Supreme Court’s newly established “public policy exception” to the essence test, a public employer can be forced to reinstate an employee who is convicted for committing theft on the job. In so doing, the majority reaches a conclusion exactly opposite that reached by this Court under the so-called “core functions” exception to the essence test.1 I believe that under either test, a public employer cannot bargain away its authority to discharge an employee who has committed theft on the job.

A public employer must retain…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Commonwealth v. Independent State Stores UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. City of Easton v. American Federation of StateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Greene County v. District 2, United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API