My question involves employment and labor law for the state of: Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of PA management employees who wish to challenge the legality of the ongoing pay freeze instituted by Ed Rendell and continued by Gov. Corbett. We believe that the pay freeze is discriminatory in that it attacks the salaries of non-union managers and professionals only. On May 13, 1991, Judge David Craig of the Commonwealth Court ruled as such regarding a management-only pay cut attempted by Governor Casey. The following paragraph is an excerpt from a Patriot News article reporting on this ruling which was ultimately upheld in the PA Supreme Court on May 15, 1991. We believe that the principals and laws referenced in this article as the basis for Judge Craigs ruling likewise apply directly to the pay freeze in our case:
He (Judge Craig) also pointed out that the law requires that the fixing of salaries and wages of employees not represented by unions shall not be without standards related to their performance of services. The law clearly excludes discrimination based on grounds unrelated to the nature of the work, he said. It does not authorize the [administration] to subject managers and professionals to pay cuts for budget goals, with no relationship to their work. Further, he said, the arbitrary pay cuts imposed on the managers is destructive of morale, especially when it puts some subordinates in position of being paid more than them.
The pay freeze also violates the following provisions of the Pay Rules established under Management Directive 505.7:
5.2 Maintenance of Pay Plan. The Director of Classification and Compensation will make appropriate studies and recommend to the Secretary of Administration amendments to the Pay Plan that are necessary for its maintenance, within the financial resources of the Commonwealth, on a current and equitable basis. Jobs will be assigned pay rates in the Pay Plan on the basis of the following factors:
(a) The relationship of the job to other jobs in the Pay Plan.
(b) The duties and responsibilities of positions in the job.
(c) The ability of the Commonwealth to recruit and retain qualified employees in the job.
(d) Prevailing rates for similar employment in the private sector and other public jurisdictions.
(e) Cost of living factors.
(f) Other factors as may be deemed appropriate.

5.22 Longevity Dates
(b) Longevity increments for management employees may be rescinded with the written approval of the Office of Administration for reasons of performance or discipline. The longevity date of a management employee whose longevity increment has been rescinded will be the effective date of the next scheduled longevity increment authorized by the Executive Board.
Exceptions to these rules are very limited; the directive does not permit exception based on budgetary reasons:
5.5 Exceptions to the Pay Rules. This subchapter governs those circumstances that normally occur in pay administration. If unusual circumstances arise which give unreasonable results when applying this subchapter, agencies are to contact the Office of Administration, Bureau of Classification, Compensation and Workplace Support. Normally, exceptions will not be granted for employees covered by labor agreements except where application of this subchapter would give windfall pay increases or absurd results that were not intended by the parties to the labor agreement. Exceptions to this subchapter, when granted, must be in writing by the Secretary of Administration.
The Office of Administrations Classification Manual further states:
Few influences disturb employee morale and motivation more than inequities in salary relationships that do not reflect real differences in difficulty or responsibilities. The primary objective of the classification system is to pay employees equally for performing substantially the same work.

Judge Craig also ruled that, of the $9.3 million in savings, only $4.2 million is general fund money relevant to the deficit. We can repeat that argument as many of us receive at least a portion of our salaries from fees, penalties, or federal funding that is not routed through the general fund. We would have to nail down the up-to -date numbers.

Finally, we can make the supporting argument that the pay freeze was not fiscally necessary to begin with: Rendell indicated in his letter announcing the pay freeze that the savings generated would be $14.7 million; he subsequently increased education spending by a record $360 million. If he would have honored our raises as he did the union raises, he still couldve increased education by more than $340 million. Likewise, the extension of the pay freeze announced by Corbett is not fiscally necessary when the Commonwealth is stashing away $780 million into the rainy day fund. These last two paragraphs are not compelling arguments on their own, but taken with the laws quoted above as well as the management directives, I think all told this comprises a solid case.
We are seeking representation to contact the Administration with our demands that include: reinstatement of every raise and service incriment missed under the pay freeze, retroactive to when they would have been received in the absence of a freeze, plus interest and any penalties allowed by law (I believe it is 25% for any pay more than 30 days late), attorney fees and court costs, and an acknowledgement by the administration that such a pay freeze is illegal under the law. We are prepared to fight this battle in the courts. Do you think we have a case?
This has gone on for several years to the point a large number of managers have been passed on the payscales and are making less then employees they are supervising who have less time in.