Court upholds union dues ruling

Huntingdon judge dismissed complaint by corrections officer

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a 2021 decision by a Huntingdon County judge dismissing a complaint in which a state corrections officer sued his union for instituting a fee schedule applicable only to employees who have opted out of paying union dues.

The officer, Chris Taylor, was a member of the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association until June 2019, when he and several others resigned from the union after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions "may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees."

The Supreme Court indicated that forcing public sector workers to pay dues violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Huntingdon County Judge George N. Zanic granted the union's preliminary objections to Taylor's lawsuit, and Taylor, represented by attorneys from the Fairness Center of Harrisburg, a nonprofit organization representing union and nonunion employees of public sector unions, appealed Zanic's ruling to the Superior Court.

Corporate counsel for the Fairness Center is former Altoona City Councilman Matthew Garber.

Taylor, an employee at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, charged that the fee schedule was adopted by the union in "bad faith" -- with the intent to discourage nonmembers from filing grievances and to retaliate against him and others who resigned from the union following the 2018 Supreme Court decision.

The argument was, despite Taylor's opting out of payment of dues, the union remains as his "exclusive representative" under Pennsylvania's Public Employee Relations Act and is obligated to bargain on issues such as wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment on Taylor's behalf.

Attorneys for Taylor argued that duty was also outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the two sides.

But the opinion issued last week by Superior Court Judges Mary Bowes, Daniel D. McCaffery and Correale F. Stevens contended that the request for declaratory judgment filed by Taylor's attorneys was deficient in that it did not include a copy of the collective bargaining agreement, which the appeals court concluded was a "glaring oversight."

"This glaring oversight creates significant ambiguity with respect to the grievance process dictated by the CB, and, more importantly, the arguable impact of the fee schedule upon the grievance and arbitration process that (the union) must follow."

Also because of the oversight, the argument becomes whether the union is precluded, under all circumstances, from imposing the fee schedule.

The Superior Court opinion pointed out that under Pennsylvania law, unions have discretion to decline grievances.

The appeals court rejected the argument that the institution of a fee schedule for grievances is a self-evident act of "bad faith."

The Superior Court opinion stated there is no support under Pennsylvania law that would indicate the union is not permitted to charge fees to nonunion members.

It also stressed that the Supreme Court in its 2018 opinion foresaw that unions could be forced to represent nonmembers in grievance proceedings.

In that opinion, the nation's highest court pointed out that representation of nonmembers furthers the interest of all employees, union and nonunion, but it noted also that "individual nonmembers could be required to pay for that service or could be denied union representation altogether."

That statement, the Superior Court indicated, opened the door to the possibility of fees for representation in grievance and arbitration proceedings.

The opinion concluded, "We cannot conclude that Mr. Taylor has proffered material facts demonstrating that (the union) has violated the duty of fair representation."

But, according to attorney Danielle Acker Susanj, vice president and senior litigation counsel for the Fairness Center, Taylor and others stopped paying union dues because they suspected the union treasurer was stealing money.

Taylor thought the grievance fees were retaliation for his query about the use of his money by the union.

In 2020, state police at Hollidaysburg arrested union treasurer Bryan Peroni who was charged with theft and forgery by the State Police Organized Crime Unit.

Peroni was charged with writing $29,365 in checks to himself between 2012 and 2017.

State court records show Peroni entered a guilty plea to theft by unlawful taking in 2021.

Susanj said the investigation into how the union money was used remains under investigation, noting Taylor is involved in additional litigation surrounding the union's use of the employees' money.

He wants to hold the union officials accountable, she said.

Asked if Taylor will appeal the Superior Court decision, she said, "he is still evaluating his options."

One of those options is to seek a review of the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.