Gilligan v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission

• Decision Date: 24 October 1979
• Citation: 407 A.2d 466,46 Pa.Cmwlth. 595
• Parties: James GILLIGAN et al., Petitioners, v. PENNSYLVANIA HORSE RACING COMMISSION et al., Respondents, Jockeys' Guild, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 466

407 A.2d 466

46 Pa.Cmwlth. 595

James GILLIGAN et al., Petitioners, v. PENNSYLVANIA HORSE RACING COMMISSION et al., Respondents Jockeys' Guild, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 13, 1979.

Decided Oct. 24, 1979.

David S. Kohn, Bruce E. Cooper, Harrisburg, for petitioners.

David H. Allshouse, Bartholomew J. DeLuca, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Andrew Johnson, Chairman, Harrisburg, for Pa. Horse Racing Commission.

Fred Speaker, Thos. B. Schmidt, III, Harrisburg, for intervenor-respondent.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., ROGERS and CRAIG, JJ.

OPINION

CRUMLISH, Jr., Judge.

On October 19, 1978, the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission (Commission), following an advertisement in 8 Pa.B. 2470 (1978), unanimously adopted an amendment to Rule 9.15 of the Rules of Racing in 8 Pa.B. 3342 (1978). Rule 9.15 provides a schedule permitting an increase of riding fees to jockeys by horse owners or trainers. The amendment was proposed to the Commission by the Jockeys' Guild, Inc., an association representing jockeys. They intervened.

The Pennsylvania Division of the Horsemen's Benevolent Protective Association (HBPA), which represents owners-trainers of racing horses at various race tracks in Pennsylvania, together with the president of the Pennsylvania division and two other horse owner-trainers affected by increased jockey fees, have filed a Petition for Review ¹ wherein they challenge the power and authority of the Commission to amend and decree the new schedule.

The Commission, having broad powers prescribed by the legislature in the supervision of all activities conducted at horse race meetings, contends that the amendment to Rule 9.15 was a valid exercise of its rule-making power. In addition, it claims it is authorized to set jockey fees under Section 1 of the Horse Racing Act ² (Act) which gives the Commission "general jurisdiction over all pari-mutual thoroughbred horse racing activities in the State and the corporations engaged therein." Legislative authorization to establish and alter jockey fees is found in Section 2(a) of the Act ³ which authorizes the Commission "to supervise generally all thoroughbred horse race meetings in the State at which pari-mutual betting is conducted."

The rationale of the proposed amendment to Rule 9.15 is, as the Commission advertised, that the present rules relating to prescribed jockey fees fixed in 1968 are not current because of "inflationary pressures and other adverse effects" and "that it would be reasonable and appropriate to increase these fees." In addition to its argument that the Commission lacks the power to set jockey fees, the HBPA alternatively urges that even had the legislature intended to vest some discretion in the Commission, the delegation is invalid because of its failure to provide adequate standards.

The cardinal issue is whether the Commission has the legislative authority to set the fees paid by HBPA members to their jockeys.

It is undisputed that the Commission exercises wide control of many diverse aspects of pari-mutual thoroughbred horse racing in Pennsylvania from meeting admission fees to regulation of the dispensing of drugs which affect the conduct of the race. However, it is equally uncontroverted that the Act fails to provide express authorization to establish rates of jockey compensation. Absent a specific legislative mandate directing the Commission to establish a jockey fee schedule, we are constrained to conclude that Commission exceeded its authority and cannot dictate the amount of jockey compensation HBPA must honor. It is clear in Pennsylvania that administrative powers must be executed within statutory borders. In re Bentleyville Plaza, Inc., 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 235, 392 A.2d 899 (1978). We do not doubt that Commission in good faith attempted to increase jockey fees in the best interests of the sport. Nevertheless, without specific statutory authorization, it errs. See George A. Fuller Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 403, 327 A.2d 191 (1974).

In reviewing the declaration of our siste...