Christopher Cooper, a corrections sergeant assigned on detached duty to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Training Academy and serving as Vice President and Chief Grievance Officer for the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association (PSCOA), filed a grievance alleging that an intoxicated cadet had been permitted to fire a weapon at the training range in violation of a contractual provision requiring due regard for the safety of all bargaining unit employees on the firing range. The grievance was submitted on March 27, 2025 through the standard grievance process set forth in the parties’ CBA.
On April 2, 2025, shortly after the grievance was filed, Lieutenant Anthony Rost approached Cooper during a break in a training session and asked to speak with him privately. According to credited testimony, Rost expressed disappointment with the grievance, stated a preference that issues be handled “without any paperwork,” and indicated that if he could not get a group of sergeants who would cooperate in that manner, the Department would “find a way” to send Cooper back to his home institution. Rost added “that’s what [I’m] here for.”
PSCOA filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the threat violated Section 1201(a)(1) of Pennsylvania’s Public Employe Relations Act (PERA), which prohibits a public employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their protected rights, including the right to file grievances.
After a hearing, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board Hearing Examiner credited Cooper’s account over management’s denials. The Hearing Examiner found that Rost’s testimony was not credible and that the surrounding circumstances supported the inference that Rost knew about the grievance and reacted to it. The Hearing Examiner also noted evidence undermining the employer’s version of events, including contemporaneous text messages and inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Applying established PLRB precedent, the Hearing Examiner explained that a violation of Section 1201(a)(1) does not require proof of actual coercion or improper motive. The question is whether the employer’s conduct, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, would reasonably tend to coerce employees in the exercise of protected rights.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that Rost’s statements met that standard. Expressing hostility toward the grievance, urging resolution without formal processes, and threatening to remove Cooper from his desirable detached-duty assignment if he continued to file grievances would reasonably tend to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights. The coercive effect was reinforced by the recent removal of a prior PSCOA president from a similar assignment, which made the threat more credible.
The Hearing Examiner rejected the employer’s argument that no violation occurred because Cooper continued to file grievances. The law focuses on the tendency of the conduct to coerce, not whether the employee was actually deterred. The Hearing Examiner nevertheless noted that Cooper testified the threat caused him to hesitate before filing future grievances, further underscoring its coercive effect.
The Hearing Examiner therefore found that the Commonwealth violated Section 1201(a)(1) of PERA and ordered it to cease and desist from interfering with employees’ protected rights and to post a notice to employees.
PA State Corrections Officers Association v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 57 PPER ¶ 55, 2026 WL 563317 (Pa. Lab. Rel. Bd. Feb. 5, 2026).