Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog : Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : McNees Wallace & Nurick Law Firm : Human Resources, Workplace and Business Law : Harrisburg, Lancaster, Allentown, Lehigh

This post was contributed by Kelley E. Kaufman, Esq., an Associate in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Law Practice Group.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania evaluated whether a public employer's ban on employee tobacco use in the workplace affected a "working condition" that was subject to the employer's statutory duty to bargain with the union representing its employees. In Borough of Ellwood City v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd. (pdf), the Court held that, under the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, the municipal employer's ban on the use of tobacco products in the workplace was a mandatory subject of bargaining.

The Borough of Ellwood passed an ordinance in 2006, which banned tobacco use on or in Borough-owned buildings, vehicles and equipment – a ban that applied to the Borough's unionized police officers. The Borough unilaterally implemented the ban without bargaining with the union. The union subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Borough with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, alleging that the Borough failed to bargain over a mandatory subject of bargaining. On appeal, the Court found for the Union, holding that tobacco use restrictions constitute a mandatory subject of bargaining – not an "inherent managerial prerogative." Thus, the Borough was obligated to bargain with the union over the tobacco restrictions.

The Ellwood Court also addressed potential conflicts between a municipality's ability to enact legislation protecting the health, welfare, safety, and general welfare of its citizens with the rights of the police officers to collectively bargain. In reconciling this conflict, the Court noted that, while local legislation promoting clean air and warning of the risks of tobacco use was laudatory, such legislation cannot serve as a barrier to negotiations over the topic when it constitutes a working condition subject to mandatory bargaining.

Although the Borough is a public employer, the Court's decision has implications for public and private employers alike. Many employers are subject to the Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act and similar local ordinances which may impose restrictions on tobacco use in workplaces and public areas. However, unionized employers who unilaterally change existing policies and practices to comply with such restrictions may face challenges from the unions with which they deal. For this reason, it may be advisable for unionized employers to discuss applicable tobacco restrictions and the impact of these restrictions with the union before implementing changes.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Pennsylvania has long been considered an "employment at will" state – meaning that employers and employees may terminate their employment relationship at any time with or without cause or prior notice. However, the number of exceptions to the "at will doctrine" seems to grow every year. The year 2010 was no exception. In Hamovitz v. Santa Barbara Applied Research Inc., 2010 WL 4117270 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2010), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recognized a new exception to the at will doctrine involving an employer's refusal to hire an applicant based on prior service in the National Guard.

In Hamovitz, the plaintiff claimed that the employer refused to rehire him based on his service in the National Guard. In addition to filing statutory claims under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") and the Pennsylvania Military Affairs Act ("PMAA"), the plaintiff brought a common law wrongful discharge/failure to hire claim seeking the court to apply a "public policy" exception to the employment at will doctrine. In Pennsylvania, exceptions to the at will doctrine are rare. Under the "public policy" exception, a plaintiff may have a viable wrongful discharge claim if he can show that his termination violated a clear mandate of public policy.

In order to show that an employer's actions offended a clear mandate of public policy, the plaintiff must show that he or she was terminated for: (1) engaging in conduct required by law or (2) refusing to engage in conduct prohibited by law. In such cases, the public policy cited by the plaintiff must have legislative or constitutional endorsement, and it must be clear and specific.

In Hamovitz, the court created a new exception to the at will doctrine: "where an employer's actions impinge upon protected rights of employees." The court found that the employer in Hamovitz may have impinged upon the employee's rights under the PMAA, and therefore, the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with his wrongful discharge claim.

By allowing this claim to go forward, the court also enabled the plaintiff to avoid the statutory limitations on damages found in USERRA and the PMAA. Although not available under the PMAA or USERRA, the court found that the plaintiff in Hamovitz would be entitled to recover punitive damages if he were to prevail on his common law wrongful discharge claim.

Unless the Hamovitz decision is reversed on appeal, this new exception to the at will doctrine may trigger a wave of litigation as plaintiffs seek broad interpretations of "actions that impinge upon protected rights of employees." Courts have long held that employees sacrifice certain rights in the workplace; for example, an employer may restrict free speech by prohibiting offensive language or behavior at work. Now, however, plaintiffs may argue that a termination, or even a refusal to hire, "impinges upon protected rights" in any number of situations that previously fell under the employment at will doctrine.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link