Central Dauphin School District Collective Bargaining Agreement

In March, a mediator from the Ministry of Labour and Industry participated in the negotiations.1 The teachers returned to school in August 2000, in accordance with the terms of the expired agreement.   In September, they submitted the case to a factual one.   The factist published his report and both the association and the district rejected the report.   Negotiated negotiations continued until the end of January 2001, but the parties did not reach an agreement. Superintendent Carol Johnson said she felt “contradictory” as a negotiator for taxpayers and the board of directors, while asking Central Dauphin`s roughly 900 teachers to do “a lot of work” to implement new teaching methods as part of the university`s initiative and district care launched in 2013. In May 2001, the association and the district ratified a new collective agreement that came into effect immediately. As a result, the Common Pleas Court issued the injunction that required the parties to work under the terms of the expired collective agreement until a new contract was negotiated. The Common Pleas Court referred the merits of the unfair labour practices to the PLRB for decision.  Smith v. Borough of Castle Shannon, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 531, 641 A.2d 671 (1994).

  As in the Mazzie case, the Common Pleas Court issued the interim order to obtain the status quo, while the association granted administrative appeals.  City of Harrisburg v. Capital City Lodge No. 12, 80 Pa.Cmwlth. 193, 471 A.2d 166, 168 (1984).   Our review of the Minutes shows that there were reasonable grounds to support the adoption of the restraining order by the Common Pleas Court.