Sergeant Jeffrey Tagmyer, a Pittsburgh police officer, was subpoenaed as a witness by his union, the Fraternal Order of Police, to testify in a discipline grievance arbitration for another officer, Sergeant Brian Elledge. After the initial arbitration hearing was continued, City Assistant Solicitor Irene Thomas arranged to interview Tagmyer about his potential testimony. Tagmyer was ordered by Assistant Police Chief Christopher Ragland, via email, to attend a meeting with Thomas on March 6, 2024. When Tagmyer arrived with his union attorney, Ronald Retsch, Thomas refused to allow Retsch to accompany him. According to testimony, Thomas told Tagmyer, “I am interviewing you as a witness in this grievance. You are not the subject of any discipline action. You will not be disciplined because you answered my questions.” However, when Retsch asked if Tagmyer was ordered to answer questions and could be disciplined for refusal, Thomas confirmed he could be. The confrontation escalated, with Thomas asking Tagmyer if he wanted her to inform Ragland he was “being insubordinate.” Tagmyer and Retsch left without the interview taking place. Tagmyer was not disciplined for this refusal. A subsequent meeting was scheduled for March 19, at which the City initially again resisted union representation, but ultimately allowed the FOP president to attend.
The FOP filed an unfair practice charge alleging the City violated Section 6(1)(a) and (c) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA) by denying representation. The City argued Tagmyer had no right to representation under Weingarten because the interview was non-investigatory; he was a witness, not a subject, and was explicitly told he faced no discipline related to his answers.
The PLRB Hearing Examiner agreed with the City on the Weingarten claim. The right to union representation attaches only during an investigatory interview where the employee reasonably believes the inquiry could lead to their own discipline. The Hearing Examiner found the objective circumstances did not meet this standard. Ragland’s email and Thomas’s opening statements clearly identified Tagmyer as a witness in the Elledge grievance, not a subject. “All communication to Tagmyer had indicated that he was being interviewed merely as a witness to an affair that did not directly impact him at all.” Tagmyer’s subjective fear upon seeing a court reporter and command staff was outweighed by these explicit assurances. His fear of discipline for insubordination — for refusing to participate — was distinct from a fear of being questioned about his own misconduct without representation. Therefore, Weingarten rights did not apply.
However, the Hearing Examiner found the City independently violated Section 6(1)(a) of the PLRA by coercively interfering with Tagmyer’s protected rights.
“Tagmyer, a bargaining-unit member, was subpoenaed to participate as a witness in a grievance arbitration on behalf of the [FOP] to defend another bargaining-unit member. I find that participating as a [u]nion witness in a grievance arbitration is an example of the exercise of rights protected by the PLRA.” The City conditioned Tagmyer’s participation in this protected activity on first submitting to an interview under threat of discipline for insubordination if he refused to answer questions, and it denied his reasonable request to have a union representative present. Thomas’s statement — “Well, do you want me to go back and tell Chief Ragland that you’re not coming back and you’re being insubordinate?” — was “clear coercion” that placed the “sword of discipline” over his decision to act as a union witness.
The City failed to show a legitimate interest in imposing these coercive conditions. While it had a legitimate interest in interviewing a witness before arbitration, it provided no adequate justification for ordering his attendance under threat of insubordination or for denying representation. Thomas testified she checked the contract to ensure it did not require representation “because of my experience with the FOP. They like to butt in, and I wanted answers from Tagmyer, not the FOP president or anyone else.” The Hearing Examiner found this an insufficient reason, noting the City could have simply directed Tagmyer, not his representative, to answer questions.
Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. City of Pittsburgh, 57 PPER ¶ 32 (Proposed Decision and Order, 2025).
This article appears in the February 2026 issue of our monthly newsletter, Public Safety Labor News.
Also in the February 2026 issue:
- County PBAs Retiree Healthcare Arbitration Win Upheld
- Court Rejects Records Request For Underlying Facts Of Use Of Force Report
- Police Officer’s Firearm Conviction Required Law Enforcement License Revocation
- New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Corrections Officer Terminated After Raising Staffing And Safety Concerns
- Court Rejects Police Officer’s Whistleblowing Claims Based On Statements Made During Disciplinary Procedure
- California Police Officer Can Proceed On First Amendment Retaliation Claim
- Union’s Refusal To Grieve Seniority Reset After Medical Leave Does Not Violate Duty Of Fair Representation
- Firefighter Entitled To Full Paid Military Leave For Forty 24-Hour Shifts
- Court Orders Release Of Internal Affairs Report After Redaction