This is a follow-up to the article “Double Whammy ULP Decisions Against Pennsylvania Police Chief With Anti-Union Bias” in the December 2025 issue of Public Safety Labor News.
Edward Titterton had been a police officer with Jenkintown Borough in Pennsylvania for years when the Borough furloughed him effective December 31, 2024. By that point, he had become deeply involved in union activity. Although he did not hold a formal union office, Titterton described himself as the Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association’s “chief litigator,” working closely with the Montgomery County FOP and helping pursue grievances and unfair labor practice charges against the Borough.
During 2024, Titterton filed at least three unfair labor practice charges with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. He also testified in proceedings involving disputes between the Borough and the Union. Several of those disputes touched on the Borough’s budget and the future of its police department.
At the same time, Thomas Scott, the Borough’s Chief of Police, was publicly raising concerns about the cost of maintaining the Department. During public meetings, Scott discussed the Department’s financial impact on Borough services and even presented the possibility of disbanding the Police Department in favor of a merger arrangement. Later in 2024, after the Borough received a police-cost analysis, Scott recommended that Titterton be involuntarily furloughed.
The Borough maintained that the decision was driven by fiscal necessity. The record, however, revealed that one officer was expected to retire and another officer ultimately left for employment elsewhere shortly after Titterton’s furlough. The departure of those officers freed substantial funds in the police budget.
The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that Titterton’s furlough was not motivated by economics at all, but rather by retaliation for his protected activity before the Board.
A hearing examiner agreed.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that Titterton’s filing of unfair labor practice charges and participation in Board proceedings were protected activities, that Borough officials knew of those activities, and that the evidence supported an inference of unlawful motive. The Hearing Examiner found that anti-union animus motivated the furlough and rejected the Borough’s explanation that budget concerns necessitated the action.
The Borough filed exceptions to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, challenging both the finding of unlawful motive and the remedies imposed by the Hearing Examiner.
The Board affirmed the central finding that the Borough violated the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act.
In reviewing the evidence, the Board emphasized testimony regarding Scott’s attitude toward the Union. Titterton testified that Scott had described the collective bargaining agreement as “immoral,” stated publicly that the Union had “fleeced” the Borough, and advocated replacing the police department with other service arrangements. The Board noted the hearing Hearing Examiner’s finding that “[Scott]’s disdain for the [Union] was readily apparent in his demeanor at the hearing.”
The Board also pointed to timing. Titterton had appeared in unfair labor practice proceedings on November 25 and December 13, 2024. Days later, he learned that the Borough had decided to furlough him. The Board concluded that the chronology supported the inference drawn by the Hearing Examiner.
The Borough argued that any connection between the hearings and the furlough was coincidental. The Board declined to disturb the Hearing Examiner’s conclusion.
The Board was equally unpersuaded by the Borough’s economic justification. While Scott testified that the Borough faced significant fiscal challenges, the Hearing Examiner found those explanations lacking. The Board noted that the Borough relied almost entirely on the Scott’s testimony rather than testimony from council members, managers, or other officials responsible for overall municipal finances. The record also showed that salary funds remained available after another officer left Borough employment.
The Hearing Examiner therefore concluded that “the Borough’s argument [as to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons] is not convincing,” and the Board agreed that the asserted economic rationale could properly be treated as pretext.
Although the Board upheld the unfair labor practice finding, it reached a different conclusion regarding the remedy. The Hearing Examiner had directed the Borough to reinstate Titterton and make him whole for lost wages and benefits. The Board held that such relief was unavailable under the statutory provisions at issue because no violation had been charged or found under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. As a result, the Board sustained the Borough’s exception on the remedy while preserving the finding that the furlough violated Sections 6(1)(a) and (d), leaving its traditional cease-and-desist remedies intact.
The Board ultimately concluded that the Borough unlawfully discriminated against Titterton for engaging in protected activity and affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s decision as modified.
Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association v. Jenkintown Borough, 58 PPER ¶ 13 (Final Order, 2026).