Greene County and Greene County Children and Youth Services, Aplt v. District 2, United Mine Workers of America and Local Union 9999, United Mine Workers of America (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-133-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY AND GREENE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, : : : : Appellants : : : v. : : : DISTRICT 2, UNITED MINE WORKERS : OF AMERICA AND LOCAL UNION 9999, : UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, : : Appellees : No. 31 WAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on June 13, 2001 at No. 3432 CD 1998, reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County entered on November 18, 1998 at No. AD 245 of 1998. 778 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) ARGUED: September 11, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: JUNE 23, 2004 As suggested by the dissent in City of Easton v. American Fed n of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 447, 562 Pa. 438, 756 A.2d 1107 (2000), the core functions doctrine fashioned in that case is inherently incompatible with an exclusive focus on rational derivation from the collective bargaining agreement, as reflected in the essence test as developed by this Court. See id. at 451, 756 A.2d at 1114 (Cappy, J., dissenting). See generally State Sys. of Higher Educ. (Cheyney Univ.) v. State College Univ. Prof l Ass n (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135, 150, 743 A.2d 405, 413 (1999) (articulating the essence test). For this reason, although I certainly respect the majority s effort, I believe that it is ultimately unsuccessful in its attempt to couch the result of this case in terms of a reasoned application of the essence test. In my view, City of Easton supplants the essence test, in favor of something akin to the otherwise discredited manifest unreasonableness standard, for certain cases arising in the public sector in which the employer s core functions can be said to be implicated by the arbitrator s decision. As I am bound by City of Easton, I concur in the result. Mr. Justice Eakin joins this concurring opinion. [J-133-2002] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
