In May 2021, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, voters approved a ballot initiative amending the County’s administrative code to impose new restrictions on solitary confinement and use of force practices at the Allegheny County Jail. The ordinance defined solitary confinement as detaining an inmate alone for more than 20 hours per day and prohibited its use except during facility-wide lockdowns. It also banned specific use-of-force tools, including leg chains, restraint chairs, and oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray).
The Jail, which previously housed disruptive or dangerous inmates in a Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) with only one hour of daily recreation, increased recreation time to four hours to comply with the ordinance. Additionally, the Jail eliminated its “Informal Resolution Policy,” which had allowed corrections officers to discipline inmates for minor infractions with cell confinement lasting up to 72 hours. The new policies significantly altered how COs maintained order, as they could no longer rely on certain restraints or chemical agents to control unruly inmates.
The Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union fled an unfair labor practice charge with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB), arguing that the County violated Sections 1201(a)(1) and (5) of the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) by unilaterally implementing these changes without bargaining. The Union contended that the policies directly impacted CO safety and working conditions, making them mandatory subjects of bargaining. Specifically, the Union asserted that: increased recreation time for RHU inmates required more staffing and prolonged inmate interactions, elevating assault risks; eliminating pepper spray and restraints forced COs to use hands-on tactics during cell extractions, increasing physical altercations; and the loss of the Informal Resolution Policy educed COs’ ability to deter misconduct, leading to more frequent inmate defiance.
The PLRB dismissed the charge, agreeing with the hearing examiner that the policies fell within the Jail’s inherent managerial prerogatives under PERA Section 702. The PLRB emphasized that decisions about inmate care, custody, and control are core managerial functions, even if they incidentally affect employee safety. From there, the Union appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
The Court affirmed the PLRB’s decision, applying the balancing test from Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District. It weighed the employees’ interest in safety against the employer’s interest in managing operations. For solitary confinement, the Court found the Union’s safety concerns speculative, noting that generalized fears about increased recreation time did not demonstrate a “direct and significant” impact on CO safety. The Court distinguished this case from City of Allentown v. IAFF Local 302, where minimum staffing levels were deemed bargainable because they directly correlated with firefighter safety. Here, the Jail’s recreation policy primarily addressed inmate welfare, not CO working conditions.
Regarding use-of-force tools, the Court deferred to PLRB precedent holding that such policies are managerial. It rejected the Union’s argument that the changes created unsafe conditions, noting that the Jail still authorized other control methods. The Court also dismissed the Union’s reliance on Department of Corrections regulations permitting restraints and chemical agents, as those rules set minimum standards but did not mandate bargaining over local policy choices.
Allegheny Cnty. Prison Emps. Indep. Union v. Pa. Lab. Rels. Bd., 2025 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 99 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025)