Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered whether an Act 111 police-union interest arbitration award deviated from Pittsburgh’s Act 47 financial recovery plan, thereby permitting a direct appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The Court held that the award adopted the plan’s specified compensation increases and did not deviate from the plan; an allegation that the plan’s expenditure limits were arbitrary, capricious, or established in bad faith could not independently establish appellate jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order quashing the appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Act 111 arbitration award deviated from the City's Act 47 recovery plan by failing to provide competitive compensation, thereby triggering Commonwealth Court jurisdiction under 53 P.S. § 11701.252(e).
- Whether the union's contention that the Plan's maximum allocations were arbitrary, capricious, or established in bad faith independently supplied a basis for direct appellate jurisdiction under Section 252(e).
Holdings
- The award did not deviate from the Plan because it adopted the Plan's specific maximum compensation allocations and projected annual increases; the Plan's generalized objective of maintaining competitive compensation did not override those express limits.
- An allegation that the Plan's expenditure limits were arbitrary, capricious, or established in bad faith cannot independently confer Commonwealth Court jurisdiction when the arbitration award did not otherwise deviate from the Plan.
Key quotations
“As such, it cannot form the basis for a determination that the Award, by adopting the salary increases in the Plan, deviates from the Plan for purposes of Section 252(e).” ([J-75-2018] - 12)
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commonwealth Court properly held that the Union’s challenge to the Award falls outside the scope of Section 252(e). Accordingly, that court’s order quashing the parties’ appeals is affirmed.” ([J-75-2018] - 14)
Factual background
Pittsburgh was designated a financially distressed municipality under Pennsylvania's Municipal Financial Recovery Act, commonly known as Act 47, and operated under a Second Amended Recovery Plan. The Plan established maximum compensation allocations for bargaining units and projected annual wage increases of 0.0 percent, 1.0 percent, 2.0 percent, and 2.0 percent from 2015 through 2018, while identifying competitive compensation and budget stability as objectives. After the police union's collective bargaining agreement expired, an Act 111 arbitration panel issued an award adopting those wage increases; the panel found that the Plan's workforce allocations were not arbitrary, capricious, or established in bad faith.
Procedural history
After the City and the police union failed to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement, an Act 111 arbitration panel issued an award covering 2015 through 2018. The union appealed directly to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the award deviated from the City's Act 47 recovery plan by failing to provide competitive compensation; the City filed a cross-appeal and moved to quash. The Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, held that it lacked jurisdiction and quashed both appeals. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.