A Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board hearing examiner issued two companion decisions on August 21, 2025, together finding that the Jenkintown Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Department and Police Chief Thomas Scott committed multiple unfair labor practices under the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA) and Act 111. Both cases stemmed from the Chief’s treatment of officers active in the Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association (PBA), the department’s bargaining representative, and together portray a pattern of anti-union hostility within the Department.
Retaliatory Evaluations Of Union Leaders
The first case addressed unusually poor 2023 performance evaluations given to three officers who were active in the union. The affected officers — PBA President Anthony Matteo, PBA Vice President Cory Murtagh, and Sergeant Albert Sulpizio — were all members of the PBA’s bargaining committee. Each received an “unsatisfactory” or downgraded rating for 2023. The evaluations were given on the heels of months of contentious negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement and the filing of grievances over scheduling and training pay.
The Hearing Examiner found that the PBA sustained its burden to prove all three elements of Pennsylvania’s familiar three-part test for unlawful discrimination: (1) the officers engaged in protected activity, (2) the Borough was aware of it, and (3) the negative evaluations were motivated by hostility to that activity.
The decision focused primarily on the third factor, concluding that the “record clearly show[ed] that the Borough was unlawfully motivated.” First “and most obvious,” the Hearing Examiner detailed the Chief’s “plain discriminatory statements” about the PBA and its leadership. Throughout 2023, the Chief made “many anti-union statements,” including describing the PBA contract as “immoral, unethical, and unfair” and publicly suggesting that the Department should “disband” rather than operate under it. The Hearing Examiner also emphasized that the Chief explicitly wrote in Matteo’s evaluation that Matteo’s status as PBA President imposed “a higher expectation” for his performance. The Hearing Examiner found this to be “the very essence of animus and disparate treatment, as it shows that the Chief was treating […] Matteo differently than the other officers simply because of his leadership position in the [PBA].” The Hearing Examiner explained that even if that statement, in isolation, could be “somewhat innocuous,” when “viewed in context with the Chief’s previous remarks, it gives rise to the inference that the Chief does not take kindly to [PBA] officials, who oppose him or have the audacity to challenge his authority.”
The decision also noted that the timing of the evaluations, following soon after the commencement of contentious negotiations, further suggested anti-union motivation.
The final factor demonstrating unlawful motivation was the “pretextual reasons offered by the Borough for its conduct.” The Chief claimed the ratings reflected legitimate concerns with the officers’ performance, particularly their failure to attend certain training courses he had identified as leadership and crisis-intervention priorities. However, the record established that the Chief himself had postponed the courses indefinitely after the PBA refused to reopen contract language guaranteeing twelve hours of pay for an eight-hour training day. The Hearing Examiner determined that holding the officers responsible for non-attendance at programs that were never scheduled showed retaliatory motive, rather than legitimate evaluation.
The Hearing Examiner also rejected the Borough’s claim that the evaluations did not constitute “discipline.” The Borough argued that because the evaluations had no immediate effect on pay or rank, they could not support a finding of unlawful discrimination. The Hearing Examiner disagreed, emphasizing that more than a decade of PLRB precedent held that “any written documentation designed to correct an employe[e]’s conduct constitutes discipline.” Even where no direct loss of pay occurs, such records can influence future promotion, transfer, or disciplinary decisions and therefore have a tangible impact on employment conditions.
Having concluded that the PBA proved that the evaluations were unlawfully-motivated discipline, the Hearing Examiner found that the Borough committed an unfair labor practice. As a remedy, the Hearing Examiner ordered the Borough to rescind and expunge all 2023 evaluations and related materials from the officers’ personnel files, to cease and desist from further interference or retaliation, and to post a notice of employees’ rights for ten consecutive days in customary locations within the Department.
Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association v. Jenkintown Borough & Chief Thomas Scott, PF-C-24-12-E, 57 PPER ¶ 25, 2025 WL 2693806 (Pa. L.R.B. Aug. 21, 2025).
Retaliatory Layoff Of Union Member
The second decision concerned the furlough of Edward Titterton, a long-serving officer and union liaison who had testified for the PBA in the earlier unfair labor practice case. Two weeks after his second appearance before the Board in December 2024, the Borough informed him that his position would be eliminated effective year-end, citing fiscal constraints and a Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) staffing analysis.
Applying the same three-part test used in 57 PPER ¶ 25, the Hearing Examiner found that the Borough committed an unfair labor practice by discriminatorily laying off Titterton in retaliation for his protected activity. The record established that the Chief had attended both PLRB hearings where Titterton testified and was aware of his Titterton’s union role. Around the same time, the Chief continued to denounce the PBA, including publicly claiming that the PBA’s contract “fleeced” the Borough. The Hearing Examiner found that the Borough’s purported financial justification for the layoff lacked credibility: the Borough offered no proof of a genuine shortfall, and two higher-paid officers were already set to retire, which would result in savings exceeding Titterton’s salary. Moreover, the DCED report was advisory and even cautioned that departments using twelve-hour shifts — like Jenkintown — might need more officers, not fewer.
Given the timing, hostility, and implausible rationale, the Hearing Examiner concluded that the Borough’s reasons were pretextual and that Titterton’s layoff was motivated by his protected testimony and union involvement. The Hearing Examiner ordered the Borough to reinstate Titterton with full back pay, benefits, and six percent annual interest, to purge all references to the layoff, and to cease and desist from further retaliation.
Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association v. Jenkintown Borough & Chief Thomas Scott, PF-C-25-6-E, 57 PPER ¶ 22, 2025 WL 2612399 (Pa. L.R.B. Aug. 21, 2025).