OPINION BY President Judge PELLEGRINI.

This matter is presently before us on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In this case, the Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (Union) filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) arguing that they are policemen and that they should be considered to be policemen for collective bargaining purposes under the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act (Act 111),1 because deputy sheriffs in counties of the second class are defined as police officers under Section 2162 of the Municipal Police Education and Training Law (MPETL)2 and Section 103 of the Crimes Code.3

The Board found that the Union was certified as the exclusive representative of the deputy sheriffs' collective bargaining unit under Section 805 of the Pennsylvania Public Employe Relations Act (PERA),4 and that the deputy sheriffs' primary duties related to County's court operations, including providing court security, serving process for the courts, executing warrants for the courts and transporting prisoners for the courts. Relying on the deputy sheriffs' previous attempts to reclassify themselves as Act 111 policemen in Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs' Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 95 Pa.Cmwlth. 132, 504 A.2d 437 (1986) and Venneri v. County of Allegheny, 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 517, 316 A.2d 120 (1974), the Board found that, even assuming that the Crimes Code and the MPETL authorized the deputy sheriffs to act as police officers, deputy sheriffs in counties of the second class are not police officers within the meaning of Act 111 because they do not effectively act as police officers and they do not perform any additional police-type duties than those that were present in those cases. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 318a-320a.)5

On appeal, this Court found that the deputy sheriffs are not police officers within the meaning of Act 111 just because they are defined as such under the Crimes Code and the MPETL or that they are legislatively authorized to act with general police powers by those statutes. Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs' Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 990 A.2d 86, 95-97 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010). We did so because the General Assembly did not grant them broad statutory police powers that were present in other statutes and because, in any event, as the Board found, the deputy sheriffs' duties are court related and not the duties of a police officer. Id. at 98-99.

On further appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board and this Court erred in applying the two-pronged test in determining that the deputy sheriffs are not police officers within the purview of Act 111 because they had been specifically defined as such by the General Assembly in the Crimes Code and the MPETL. Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs' Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 41 A.3d 839, 843-45 (2012). As the Supreme Court explained:

Id. at ___, 41 A.3d at 844-45, 845-46 (footnotes omitted). In essence, our Supreme Court took the second prong out of the two-pronged test that those designated as policemen or firemen had to function as policemen to be considered such under Act 111; all that is required is that the General Assembly has to designate them as such. Id.

However, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that this Court had not considered the County's constitutional claims, stating:

Id. at ___ n. 8, 41 A.3d at 846 n. 8 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated our prior order and remanded the case for disposition of the foregoing constitutional claims that were raised by the County but not previously addressed by this Court.

In this appeal, citing DeFazio v. Civil Service Commission of Allegheny County, 562 Pa. 431, 756 A.2d 1103 (2000), the County argued that extending Act 111 coverage to the terms and conditions of the deputy sheriffs' employment would violate Article 3, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.9

In DeFazio, the Sheriff filed an action to enjoin the County from enforcing Sections 1216 and 1217 of the Second Class County Code10 that were specifically directed at his office and which required him to abide by certain competitive merit hiring and promotion procedures and limited the political activities of his employees. Article 9, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution denominates county officers, including the sheriff, and makes no distinction as to their powers providing that the "provisions for county government in this section shall apply to every county except a county which has adopted a home rule charter or an optional form of government." Pa. Const. art. IX, § 4. The trial court declared the legislation unconstitutional under Article 3, Section 32 and issued a permanent injunction. The Attorney General's Office, as intervenor, appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the classification and disparate treatment in the statute was justified due to the legislative classification of Allegheny County as a second class county and the unique function of the Sheriff's office.

The Supreme Court rejected this assertion, explaining:

Id. at 437-38, 756 A.2d at 1106.

Likewise, in the instant case, the deputy sheriffs will be improperly singled out for disparate treatment, as a sub-classification for collective bargaining purposes, from all other deputy sheriffs in the Commonwealth based on the provisions in the Crimes Code and the MPETL when the Constitution makes no such distinction and our Supreme Court has prohibited such disparate treatment. DeFazio teaches us that the deputy sheriffs may not be treated differently from the other similar deputy sheriffs in the Commonwealth merely because they are within a certain class of county, and the distinction created by this legislation bears no fair or reasonable relationship to the object of the legislation, to the distinction of Allegheny County as a county of the second class, or to the deputy sheriffs' duties. Id. at 437-38, 756 A.2d at 1106. The provisions of the Crimes Code and the MPETL that designate the deputy sheriffs as police officers fails to comport with the requirements of Article 3, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. As a result, deputy sheriffs in counties of the second class are not police officers for whom collective bargaining rights are conferred by Act 111 and, like all other deputy sheriffs in the Commonwealth, their collective bargaining rights are derived from Section 805 of the PERA.11

Accordingly, the Board's order is affirmed.

Judges McCULLOUGH and COVEY did not participate in the decision in this case.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2013, the order of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, dated April 21, 2009, at No. PF-R-08-74-W, is affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION BY Judge BROBSON.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held "that deputy sheriffs of counties of the second class are police officers falling under Act 111.[1]" Allegheny Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., ___ Pa. ___, ___, 41 A.3d 839, 846 (2012) (emphasis added). The majority, however, concludes that "deputy sheriffs in counties of the second class are not police officers for whom collective bargaining rights are conferred by Act 111." (Maj. Op. at 12 (emphasis added).) Because the majority's holding is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in this case, I respectfully dissent.

I acknowledge, as the majority does, footnote 8 of the Supreme Court's decision, in which the Supreme Court noted the unresolved argument of Intervenor Allegheny County (County) that "it would be unconstitutional for the Deputy Sheriffs to be afforded Act 111 police officer status." Allegheny Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, ___ Pa. at ___ n. 8, 41 A.3d at 847 n. 8. The Supreme Court chose not to address that argument because we did not address it in our prior opinion and because the Supreme Court did not accept the issue for review. Id. The Supreme Court then noted in the same footnote its decision to "remand the matter" to us, id., and further noted in the body of its opinion that "this matter is remanded to [the Commonwealth Court] for proceedings consistent with this opinion." Id. at ___, 41 A.3d at 846 (emphasis added).

Respectfully, I do not believe the majority's conclusion that deputy sheriffs of counties of the second class (Deputy Sheriffs) are not police officers falling under Act 111 is consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion holding that they are. This begs the question — for what purpose did the Supreme Court remand this matter to us? I believe that on remand, we have been instructed to evaluate the merit of the County's constitutional arguments in light of the Supreme Court's decision that Deputy Sheriffs, because they are defined as police officers under Section 2162 of the Municipal Police Education and Training Law (MPETL)2 and Section 103 of the Crimes Code,3 benefit from the protections and rights afforded under Act 111.

To be clear, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the General Assembly, by choosing to include Deputy Sheriffs in the statutory definitions of "police officer" in the MPETL and Crimes Code, intended Deputy Sheriffs to be eligible for Act 111 rights and protections like any other police officer in this Commonwealth. Id. (noting "[t]he pains the legislature took to specifically single out these particular law enforcement personnel"). It, therefore, is not within our purview to ignore the General Assembly's intent to reach an alternative definition of "police officer" for purposes of Act 111. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) ("[T]he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly."). The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) in this matter held that the Deputy Sheriffs are not police officers within the meaning of Act 111 and thus denied the petition of the Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (Association) for certification to represent the Deputy Sheriffs as police officers under Act 111. In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision, the PLRB's reasoning can no longer be used to justify its decision to deny certification to the Association.

The question now on remand is whether the County has advanced a constitutional argument that would support affirmance of the PLRB's decision to deny certification on alternative grounds. In its brief following remand, the County relies on Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,4 which prohibits the General Assembly from passing special or local laws benefitting particular political subdivisions or classes of persons, over others similarly-situated. See Pa. Turnpike Comm'n v. Commonwealth, 587 Pa. 347, 363-64, 899 A.2d 1085, 1094 (2006).

An example of a successful "special law" challenge to legislation is DeFazio v. Civil Service Commission of Allegheny County, 562 Pa. 431, 756 A.2d 1103 (2000), which is cited by the majority. In that case, the sheriff of Allegheny County initiated an equity action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, challenging the constitutionality of legislation that applied only to the hiring and promotion procedures for and political activities of sheriff's employees only in counties of the second class. The trial court held that such legislation, targeted only at counties of the second class, was unconstitutional because it violated Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Our Supreme Court affirmed: "In this case, [the legislation] bear[s] no relationship to the status of Allegheny County's second class classification or to any unique characteristic of the office of sheriff in a second class county." DeFazio, 562 Pa. at 438, 756 A.2d at 1106.

DeFazio would certainly support an argument that any legislation that grants special treatment to the Deputy Sheriffs should be held unconstitutional. But this case is not a DeFazio-type challenge to a particular piece (or pieces) of legislation. Unlike the plaintiff in DeFazio, the County here does not argue that Act 111 is unconstitutional under Article III, Section 32. Nor does the County contend that we should declare Section 2162 of the MPETL and Section 103 of the Crimes Code unconstitutional as granting favored treatment to the Deputy Sheriffs over the deputy sheriffs in other counties of the Commonwealth. Indeed, the County deftly avoids a direct attack on the constitutionality of either Act 111 or the sections of the MPETL and Crimes Code that define police officer to include the Deputy Sheriffs. Instead, the County employs the constitutional prescription against local and special laws as a statutory construction device, urging us on remand to construe "police officer" for Act 111 purposes to exclude the Deputy Sheriffs, because to do otherwise would be to afford special status to the Deputy Sheriffs.

If the General Assembly's intent as to the meaning of the term police officer for purposes of Act 111 were still in doubt, the County's resort to the Pennsylvania Constitution to ascertain legislative intent would be appropriate. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(3) (providing that in ascertaining legislative intent, courts should presume "[t]hat the General Assembly does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this Commonwealth"). Here, however, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in this matter, the meaning of police officer for purposes of Act 111 is no longer in dispute. It includes the Deputy Sheriffs. We cannot now, even under the guise of the Pennsylvania Constitution, ascribe a contrary legislative intent.

For purposes, then, of this appeal from the PLRB decision, we are left only to determine whether the Deputy Sheriffs, who are police officers, are entitled to the rights and protections afforded under Act 111. Because all police officers in this Commonwealth are so entitled, and because there is nothing unconstitutional about Act 111 in terms of affording police officers (or "policemen," as used in Act 111) those rights and protections,5 the PLRB erred in not granting the Association's petition for certification. Unless and until the sections of the MPETL and Crimes Code that define police officers as including the Deputy Sheriffs are amended or declared unconstitutional (possibly under Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution), the Deputy Sheriffs, as police officers, fall within the scope of Act 111.

For these reasons, I would reverse the PLRB's decision and remand with direction that the PLRB grant the Association's petition for certification.

Judge McGINLEY joins in this dissenting opinion.