Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers whether an Act 111 grievance arbitrator exceeded her authority by awarding eight hours of overtime pay to Pittsburgh police officers whose scheduled pass days were canceled to staff a marathon. The case addresses the distinction between narrow certiorari review of Act 111 arbitration awards and impermissible review or modification of the collective bargaining agreement, including the distinction between grievance and interest arbitration. The supplied text ends before the court's disposition and final holding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Commonwealth Court exceeded the narrow-certiorari scope of review applicable to Act 111 grievance-arbitration awards by setting aside the arbitrator's award as an equitable reformation of the collective bargaining agreement.
- Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction and authority to decide the FOP's grievance concerning compensation for officers required to work on canceled pass days.
- Whether the arbitrator's allegedly erroneous interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement constituted an excess of authority reviewable under narrow certiorari.
- Whether the City's constitutional challenge under Article III, Section 31 of the Pennsylvania Constitution should be addressed.
Holdings
- The arbitrator had subject-matter jurisdiction because the dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between a public employer and police employees and was rationally related to the terms and conditions of their employment.
- The arbitrator did not exceed her authority under narrow certiorari review. Her reasoning, even if legally flawed, demonstrated sufficient interpretive focus on the collective bargaining agreement and did not constitute an indisputably overt reformation of the agreement.
- The award was not shown to be an indisputably overt reformation of the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator's interpretation therefore remained insulated from judicial review under narrow certiorari.
- The Court declined to address the constitutional challenge because it was raised for the first time in a responsive brief, the FOP had not submitted a reply, and the record did not adequately establish the award's fiscal impact.
Key quotations
“Absent an indisputably overt instance of reformation, however, we find the task of distinguishing between such an innovation and errors of law in the interpretation to be unmanageable.” (at 19-20)
“Presently, we agree with the FOP that the arbitrator’s legal reasoning, however flawed, demonstrates sufficient interpretative focus.” (at 20)
“As long as an award concerns terms and conditions of employment, and the arbitrator does not require the performance an illegal act -- or one that a party could not do voluntarily -- the authority prong of narrow certiorari review is generally met.” (at 16-17)
Factual background
The City of Pittsburgh organized its 2016 annual marathon, requiring approximately 70 police officers to work on scheduled pass days after insufficient volunteers responded to a request for secondary-employment personnel. The officers received at least four hours of overtime pay under the collective bargaining agreement's call-out provision. The arbitrator concluded that canceling a pass day effectively canceled the entire eight-hour day and awarded eight hours of overtime pay, although the agreement did not expressly provide compensation for canceled pass days.
Procedural history
The FOP filed a grievance after the City required approximately 70 police officers to work on scheduled pass days during the 2016 Pittsburgh Marathon and paid them under the collective bargaining agreement's call-out provision. The arbitrator awarded eight hours of overtime pay for each canceled pass day. The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, acting as the statutory appeals court, set aside the award. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, concluding that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority by effectively reforming the collective bargaining agreement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the arbitration award.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Commonwealth Court's order and remand for reinstatement of the arbitration award.