In January 2024, Lower Moreland Township, Pennsylvania, administered promotional examinations for a newly created corporal position and a vacant sergeant position. Ten officers took the corporal exam, and eight officers passed, creating a ranked eligibility list based on combined written, physical, and oral examination scores.
The highest-scoring officer on the corporal list was promoted to sergeant after also finishing first on the sergeant eligibility list. The next five officers on the corporal list were then promoted to corporal, leaving Officers 1 and 2 as the remaining candidates on the active corporal list. Officer 1 held the higher examination score.
The situation changed after Lieutenant Scott Smith became Chief of Police in June 2024. His promotion created additional vacancies, including another corporal position. In October 2024, Smith informed Officer 1 that he would not be receiving the promotion despite having the higher test score. Instead, Smith selected Officer 2, explaining that he believed Officer 2 was more decisive and confident.
The Lower Moreland Township Police Benevolent Association filed an unfair labor practice charge, arguing that the Township had departed from its longstanding practice of promoting the highest-scoring candidate. After a hearing, a Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) hearing examiner rejected the claim and concluded that the Township’s selection decision fell within management’s authority. The Association filed exceptions to the PLRB.
The record showed that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement contained no language governing promotions. Instead, the Township relied on its Civil Service Regulations, which incorporated the so-called “Rule of 3.” Under that process, the Township could fill a vacancy from among the top three candidates on an eligibility list, with appointments made based on the “merits and fitness” of the candidates.
Township Manager Christopher Hoffman testified that the Township had consistently applied the Rule of 3, even when the highest-scoring candidate ultimately received the promotion. Smith testified that test scores were only one factor in the promotional process. He also considered leadership, judgment, decisiveness, and overall suitability for a supervisory role.
According to Smith, Officer 2 excelled in areas that were particularly important for supervision. The record also reflected concerns raised in Officer 1’s prior evaluations regarding decision-making and decisiveness.
The PLRB affirmed the hearing examiner’s dismissal of the charge.
Relying on prior PLRB precedent, the PLRB explained that employers may be required to bargain over aspects of promotional procedures, but the ultimate selection of a candidate remains a managerial function. Quoting its earlier decision, the PLRB reiterated that “it is ultimately the public employer’s managerial right, at the conclusion of these processes, to select among candidates and retain qualified candidates based on the public employer’s assessment of the qualifications of candidates.”
The PLRB found that the prior precedent was “directly on point.” It noted that the Township’s regulations expressly allowed selection from among the top candidates and that Smith articulated specific reasons for preferring Officer 2, including “decision making, leadership, and decisiveness.” The PLRB added: “It is not within the [PLRB]’s or Association’s authority to substitute its judgment as to who the most qualified officer is for promotion.”
The Association argued that the Township’s past practice of promoting the highest scorer should be treated as a bargainable condition of employment. The PLRB disagreed, concluding that employers covered by Act 111 retain “managerial discretion to select the most qualified candidate for promotion from a group of applicants.” Requiring bargaining over those choices, the PLRB stated, would “unduly infringe on the Township’s essential responsibilities to determine, in its discretion, how best to safely and effectively provide police services as well as manage its personnel and its police operations.”
Because the promotional decision itself was a matter of managerial prerogative, the PLRB held that the Association failed to establish a unilateral change in a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Lower Moreland Township Police Benevolent Association v. Lower Moreland Township, 58 PPER ¶ 10 (Final Order, 2026).