Parker v. Com., Dept. of Labor and Industry

Decision Date31 March 1988
Citation540 A.2d 313,115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93
PartiesPearlie M. PARKER, Richard W. Bittinger, Wayne Stine and Leonard Spielman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY and Harris L. Wofford, Jr., Secretary of Labor and Industry, and Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Motts U.S.A., W.E. Bittinger Co., Inc., John F. Cope Co., Inc., Furman Foods, Inc., Benjamin Lipitz Co., Kresge Farm Foods, Inc., Welch Foods, Inc., Respondents.
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Donald Marritz, Legal Services, Gettysburg, Carolyn Carter, Carlisle, and David Woodward, Chambersburg, for petitioners.

LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen., Gregory R. Neuhauser, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., Andrew S. Gordon, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Chief, Litigation Section, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth respondents.

John S. Oyler, H. Lee Roussel, Alan R. Boynton, Jr., Bruce Bagley, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, for respondents Knouse Foods Co-op., Inc., Bittinger Co., Inc., John F. Cope. Co., Inc., Furman Foods, Inc., Benjamin Lipitz Co., Kresge Farms Foods, Inc. and Welch Foods, Inc.

Kathryn H. Levering, David F. Abernethy, Philadelphia, for respondent, Cadbury Schweppes, Inc. and its Motts, U.S.A. div.

Douglas B. Macbeth, Guy A. Messick, Fronefield & deFuria, Media, for Benjamin Lipitz Co.

Before MacPHAIL and BARRY, JJ., and BARBIERI, Senior Judge.

OPINION

BARRY, Judge.

This is a class action within our original jurisdiction seeking a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of Section 402.5 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 1 as well as an injunction against the further application of said statute. The petitioners are Pearlie M. Parker, Wayne Stine and Leonard Spielman, who bring this action on behalf of themselves and all workers who have been determined to be or may, in the future, be determined to be seasonal workers in the fruit and vegetable food processing industry. 2 The respondents are the Department of Labor and Industry (Department) and the Secretary of the Department of Industry, (government respondents) and those companies which are engaged in the fruit and/or vegetable food processing industry in the Commonwealth (private respondents). We are here concerned with preliminary objections filed by both the government and private respondents.

BACKGROUND

Section 402.5 provides in pertinent part:

Eligibility of Seasonal Workers in fruit and vegetable food processing

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act with respect to service performed in a 'seasonal operation' or 'seasonal industry', as defined in this section, benefits shall not be paid to a seasonal worker, based on such services for any week of unemployment occurring outside of the normal seasonal period of operation, provided there is a contract or reasonable assurance that such seasonal worker will perform services in that seasonal industry in his next normal seasonal period. However, if upon presenting himself for work in his next normal seasonal period, the individual is not offered an opportunity to perform such services, his claims for unemployment compensation shall be accepted retroactively to the time the individual's benefits (based on seasonal and nonseasonal wages) would have commenced but for this subsection.

(b) Upon written application filed with the department by an employer engaged in a 'seasonal industry,' as defined in this section, the secretary shall determine, and may thereafter redetermine, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the department, the normal seasonal period during which workers are ordinarily employed for the purpose of carrying on seasonal operations in the seasonal industry in which such employer is engaged. An application for such determination shall be made on forms prescribed by the department. Such application must be made at least twenty (20) days prior to the estimated beginning date of the normal seasonal period for which the determination is requested. Simultaneously with the filing of the application, the employer shall conspicuously display on the employer's premises, in a sufficient number of places, a copy of the application.

(c) An employer determined, in accordance with the provisions of this section, to be a 'seasonal operation' or 'seasonal industry,' as defined in this section, shall be required to conspicuously display notices of the seasonal determination on its premises in a sufficient number of places as will fairly advise its employes of the estimated beginning and estimated ending dates of its normal seasonal period. Such notices shall be provided by the department.

....

(e) Any determination issued under the provisions of this section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to the same extent as all other determinations issued under this act.

....

(h) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) 'Fruit or vegetable food processing operation' means those services performed in connection with commercial canning or commercial freezing of fruits and vegetables.

(2) 'Normal seasonal period' means the normal seasonal period, as determined in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, during which workers are ordinarily employed for the purpose of carrying on seasonal operations in each seasonal industry, as defined in this section.

(3) 'Seasonal industry' means an industry, establishment or process within an industry which, because of climatic conditions making it impractical or impossible to do otherwise, customarily carries on fruit or vegetable food processing operations, or both, only during a regularly recurring period of one hundred eighty (180) days of work or less in a calendar year.

(4) 'Seasonal operation' means an operation in which it is customary for an employer engaged in a seasonal industry as defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (h) of this section, to operate all or a portion of its business during a regularly recurring period of one hundred eighty (180) days of work or less for a normal seasonal period during a calendar year. An employer may be determined to be engaged in a seasonal industry as defined in this section, with respect to a portion of its business, only if that portion, under the usual and customary practice in the industry, is identifiable as a functionally distinct operation.

(5) 'Seasonal worker' means a worker who performs commercial canning or commercial freezing services for a fruit or vegetable food processing operation for less than one hundred eighty (180) days of work.

Prior to the enactment of this statute, workers whose wages were attributable solely to employment in seasonal fruit and vegetable food processing operations were able to collect unemployment compensation benefits during the off-season period (i.e., those weeks occurring outside the normal seasonal period of operation), even though they may have had contracts or reasonable assurances that they would be performing services in that industry in the season following thereafter.

The petitioners' claims in this action can be summarized as follows:

(a) Section 402.5 is a 'special' or 'local' law prohibited by Article III, Section 32 of the state constitution.

(b) Section 402.5 was enacted in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the state constitution, because its subject and purpose was not clearly expressed in the title of the bill which it has its genesis in House Bill 1042, 1985 Session.

(c) Section 402.5 was enacted in violation of Article III, Section 3 of the State constitution, since the original version of House Bill 1042 was so altered and amended as to entirely change its original purpose.

(d) Section 402.5 was enacted in violation of Article III, Sections 2 and 4 of the state constitution, because the version of House Bill 1042 which passed the General Assembly, (Printers No. 1984), was never referred to a House Committee and was not considered by the House on three separate days.

(e) By reason of the procedures provided for an employer's obtaining a seasonal determination and review of such a determination, Section 402.5, on its face and as applied, violate petitioners' rights under the state Administrative Agency Law, the federal Social Security Act, Article V, Section 9 of the state constitution and the due process provisions of the state and federal constitutions.

(f) Section 402.5 deprives affected workers of equal protection of the laws, in violation of both the state and federal constitutions.

(g) Section 402.5 deprives affected workers of substantive due process, in violation of both the state and federal constitutions.

(h) Section 402.5 improperly delegates legislative power to private parties, in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the state constitution.

In addition to all of these claims, the petitioners contend that the Department has not been, and is not now, administering Section 402.5 according to its express requirements.

I. JURISDICTION

The private respondents initially contend that (1) jurisdiction for declaratory relief is unavailable because (a) the matter involves disguised appeals from orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) and (b) this matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal other than a court; (2) jurisdiction for injunctive relief is unavailable because petitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to them; and (3) this Court should not entertain this action since there are appeals pending before it involving the constitutional issues raised herein, with each of the petitioners being a party to at least one of them. In addition, both the private and the government respondents contend that there is no actual controversy between themselves and the petitioners.

Private respondents' first argument involves Section 7541(c) of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 3 which provides that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Gmerek v. State Ethics Com'n
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • May 18, 2000
    ...statute's validity, such as that raised in the instant matter, may be decided by declaratory judgment. Parker v. Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93, 540 A.2d 313 (1988), aff'd, 521 Pa. 531, 557 A.2d 1061 In addition, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted: ["]There is ......
  • Pennsylvania AFL-CIO by George v. Com.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • April 1, 1997
    ...are germane to, and do not wholly change, the general subject of the bill. Id. See also Parker v. Com., Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93, 120-23, 540 A.2d 313, 328 (1988), aff'd per curiam, 521 Pa. 531, 557 A.2d 1061 In the present case, we have already determined that th......
  • Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Com.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • November 13, 1995
    ...was it considered in each house on three separate days, as mandated by Article III, section 4. In Parker v. Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93, 540 A.2d 313, 328 (1988), we adopted the rule followed by other jurisdictions in relation to whether or not an amended bill need b......
  • PA SC. BOARDS ASS'N v. Ass'n of Sc. Adm'rs
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 16, 2002
    ...former being non-justiciable and the later reviewable. This new standard was applied in Parker v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93, 540 A.2d 313 (1988), aff'd per curiam, 521 Pa. 531, 557 A.2d 1061 (1989), where the statute challenged was Sec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT