PASSHE v. PLRB

── PASSHE v. PLRB ── Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Fizzano Cannon Category: General IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania State System of : Higher Education, : Petitioner : : v. : : Pennsylvania Labor Relations : Board, : No. 209 C.D. 2025 Respondent : Argued: December 10, 2025 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge OPINION1 BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: May 13, 2026 The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) petitions for review of the January 21, 2025 final order (Final Order) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB), which dismissed PASSHE’s 1 After circulation and consideration by the full Court, this case proceeded to judicial conference in accordance with the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating Procedures and is being filed as a plurality opinion. 210 Pa. Code § 69.256. If, pursuant to vote after judicial conference consideration, a majority of all of the Judges, as well as a majority of the Judges who heard the case or to whom it was submitted on briefs, favor the result reached in the circulated draft opinion, that opinion, together with any concurring or dissenting opinions and notations of concurrences or dissents, shall be filed. Id. exceptions to a Hearing Examiner’s second proposed decision and order (Second PDO). The Second PDO concluded that California University of Pennsylvania (University)2 engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 1201(a)(1) of the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA)3 when it directed Intervenor, Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (Union), to remove a poster identifying “strikebreakers” in a public university hallway and subsequently investigated the local Union president. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. I. Background On October 12, 2016, local Union president, Barbara Hess, sent email correspondence advising all faculty members of the University not to cross the picket line in an upcoming strike. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 341a-42a. In relevant part, the email stated “[t]he other reason to not cross the picket line is that there is the chance that your department may not approve that you be hired back again. Keep in mind that the persons who voted to hire you also have the power to say ‘We don’t want you back.’” Id. A few days later, the Union commenced a Commonwealth- wide strike from October 19 through October 21. Id. at 9a. Despite the scope of the strike, some members of the local chapter of the Union at the University did not participate and broke the picket line to carry on with their daily responsibilities. Pertinently, Michele Pagen, a professor of music and theater at the University, crossed the picket line to meet with the provost regarding concerns Pagen had about 2 California University of Pennsylvania is 1 of the 14 public universities represented by PASSHE. 3 Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101-1101.2301. 2 the theater program. Id. Similarly, Marcia Hoover, a professor in the University’s Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership, crossed the picket line to teach two classes during the strike. Id. at 10a. On December 8, 2016, the Union hung a poster