786 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jan 12, 2017Background
- Four municipalities (Maxatawny Twp., Topton Borough, Lyons Borough, and later Upper Macungie Twp.) formed a regional police commission and collective Berks‑Lehigh Regional Police Department governed by a CBA covering 2008–2010 and an interest arbitration award extending 2011–2013.
- Upper Macungie voted to withdraw and the Commission voted to disband the regional department effective December 31, 2012, terminating all officers.
- The union (Berks‑Lehigh Regional Police Officers Ass’n) filed an unfair‑labor‑practice charge with the PLRB (dismissed as premature) and later proceeded to an impact arbitration panel (May 2013) that issued an Award addressing post‑dissolution impacts (references, files, recall rights) but did not resolve a breach‑of‑contract claim.
- The union then sued the municipalities in the Court of Common Pleas claiming breach of the CBA and seeking damages. Upper Macungie moved for summary judgment, arguing the arbitration Award and/or PLRB jurisdiction precluded the court action.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; Upper Macungie appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which reviewed whether the Award or PLRB jurisdiction deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the impact arbitration Award finally and fully resolved the union's breach‑of‑contract claim | The Award was an interest arbitration and did not resolve the breach claim; thus plaintiff can litigate breach in court | The Award was final and binding and settled all claims, precluding the court case | The Award was an interest/impact arbitration addressing post‑dissolution effects and did not finally resolve the breach‑of‑contract claim; it did not bar the court action |
| Whether the arbitration was interest arbitration or grievance arbitration | Award/panel framed issues as impact (interest) arbitration; relief dealt with post‑dissolution impacts | Township urged the dispute was a grievance about CBA breach resolved by arbitration | Court concluded the Award was an interest/impact arbitration (not binding grievance arbitration on the breach claim) |
| Whether the PLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over the union’s breach‑of‑contract claim | Plaintiff: breach claim seeks ordinary contract damages and does not plead an unfair labor practice; court has original jurisdiction | Defendant: any CBA breach is necessarily an unfair labor practice within PLRB exclusive jurisdiction | Court held not every CBA breach is per se an unfair labor practice; where plaintiff pleads breach and requests contract remedies (not PLRA relief), the court has original jurisdiction |
| Whether a party must first submit a CBA breach to the PLRB for a determination that it constitutes an unfair labor practice | Plaintiff argued no prerequisite; parties may choose PLRB but court action is proper when only contract remedies are sought | Defendant argued PLRB must first decide where unfair labor practice might exist | Court held PLRB review is available but not required; choice to seek PLRB relief is voluntary and absence of an unfair‑labor‑practice allegation leaves the common pleas court with jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 22, 999 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2010) (distinguishes interest arbitration from grievance arbitration)
- Twp. of Moon v. Police Officers of Twp. of Moon, 498 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1985) (Act 111 does not require binding arbitration for grievances absent agreement)
- Borough of Philipsburg v. Bloom, 554 A.2d 166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (common pleas jurisdiction over CBA claims absent agreement to arbitrate)
- West Lampeter Twp. v. Police Officers of W. Lampeter Twp., 598 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (parties may exclude grievances from arbitration; arbitration is contractual)
- Hazleton Area Sch. Dist. v. Bosak, 671 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (arbitration depends on agreement of parties)
- Pa. State Troopers Ass’n v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 761 A.2d 645 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (PLRB may review repudiation to decide if unfair labor practice exists)
- AFSCME, Dist. Council 47 v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 41 A.3d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (PLRB remedies statutory unfair labor practice, not contractual breaches)
- Wilkes‑Barre Twp. v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 878 A.2d 977 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (distinguishable: there the association alleged unfair labor practices and pursued PLRB relief)