Bristol Borough, Pennsylvania, laid off police officer Kevin DiPaolo on February 21, 2024, after approximately 15 years of service. At the time of the layoff, the Borough did not provide severance, continuing medical benefits, or any clarification of recall or pension rights. The parties’ collective bargaining agreement, effective through December 31, 2025, contained no provisions addressing the rights of employees following a layoff or while on furlough.
Within days, the Bristol Borough Police Benevolent Association demanded impact bargaining over the effects of the layoff. The Borough responded by questioning the basis for any bargaining obligation. The Union reiterated its demand, citing authority requiring municipalities to bargain over the effects of layoffs, and later demanded interest arbitration when discussions did not progress. On September 23, 2024, the Borough refused to proceed to arbitration.
The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging that the Borough violated Sections 6(1)(a) and (e) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (Act) by refusing to bargain over the effects of the layoff and by declining to proceed to interest arbitration. Following a hearing, a hearing examiner concluded that the Borough committed an unfair labor practice. The Hearing Examiner found that, although the Borough lawfully exercised its managerial prerogative in deciding to lay off DiPaolo, the effects of that decision — on wages, hours, and working conditions — remained subject to mandatory bargaining.
The Hearing Examiner explained that the record demonstrated “a demonstrable and severable impact on the employee’s wages, hours and working conditions,” noting that DiPaolo received no severance, no continuing benefits, and no information regarding recall or pension rights. The examiner further emphasized that requiring bargaining over these impacts “would in no way negate the underlying decision to furlough the employee in the first instance.”
The Hearing Examiner also found that the Union timely demanded bargaining after the layoff and that the Borough ultimately refused to proceed to arbitration once the parties reached impasse. On that basis, the Hearing Examiner concluded that the Borough violated its statutory duty and ordered it to submit the dispute to interest arbitration.
The Borough filed exceptions, arguing that it had no obligation to bargain over the effects of the layoff and that the Hearing Examiner erred in finding a violation. The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board dismissed those exceptions and made the Hearing Examiner’s decision final and absolute.
In doing so, the Board adopted the Hearing Examiner’s analysis in full. The Board reiterated that an employer’s managerial prerogative to lay off employees does not extinguish its obligation to bargain over the impact of that decision. It emphasized that a public safety “employer’s collective bargaining obligation includes the duty to proceed to binding interest arbitration during the term of a collective bargaining agreement if the parties’ negotiations reach impasse,” including over “the impact or effects of a managerial prerogative decision.” The Board further explained that the Borough’s duty to bargain is “statutory in nature” and applies to changes in wages, hours, or working conditions “irrespective of whether these collective bargaining rights of the employees arise during the terms of a collective bargaining agreement or negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement.”
Central to the Board’s reasoning was the absence of contractual language addressing the effects of layoffs. Because the collective bargaining agreement was silent on matters such as recall rights, severance, and benefits during furlough, the Borough was required to bargain over those issues. The Board stated plainly that “the CBA’s lack of any provisions addressing the impact of layoffs is evidence, in and of itself, that the Borough has a duty to bargain such matters to agreement or submit the dispute to interest arbitration.”
Having found that the Borough was statutorily obligated to bargain over the effects of the layoff, the Board concluded that its refusal to proceed to interest arbitration constituted a per se violation of the Act.
Bristol Borough Police Benevolent Association v. Bristol Borough, 58 PPER ¶ 5, (Final Order 2026).
This article appears in the November 2026 issue of our monthly newsletter, Public Safety Labor News.
Also in the November 2026 issue:
- Bad Proposals Do Not A ULP Make
- Prison Officer’s Internal Safety Complaints May Be Protected Whistleblowing
- EMT Fired After Showing Coworkers Nude Photos Of Alleged Harasser
- St. Louis Couldn’t Scrap Police Promotion Process Because Finalists Were White
- Correctional Officer’s Warning To Inmate Son Not Protected Speech
- Police Lieutenant Loses Discrimination Claim But Wins $438,000 Retaliation Verdict
- Texas Police Sergeant’s Grievance Keeps Whistleblower Suit Alive
- Arbitrator Did Not Rewrite Contract in Retiree Healthcare Case, Court Rules
- Florida Police Chief’s Whistleblower Memo To FBI Was Protected Speech
- New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Overtime Back Pay Award After Trooper’s Reinstatement
- D.C. Fire Union’s Arbitration Win Blocks Agency’s Second Bite