Bethel Park School District v. Bethel Park Federation of Teachers, Local 1607
193 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3597
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Grievant Michael W. Lehotsky, a seventh-grade mathematics teacher for Bethel Park School District since 1991, faced escalating misconduct beginning around 2003.
- During 2008-2009, there were reports of unwelcome contact with seventh-grade female students, including holding hands and caressing backs/legs during assistance.
- Psychiatric evaluations recommended no contact with students outside structured classroom settings; the improvement plan barred a math lab and contact outside class, which Grievant violated.
- Grievant met with students during lunch in other teachers’ classrooms, continued physical contact, and made death threats toward administrators; the District moved toward discharge under district policies and state law.
- November 24, 2009: Board notified Grievant of intent to discharge for violating state law and district policies; Grievant pursued the contractual grievance/arbitration process.
- February 10, 2011: Arbitrator partially sustained the grievance, set aside the discharge, but determined the District violated due process; the District appealed and the trial court vacated the award and upheld termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essence test applicability | Federation: award derives from CBA terms. | District: award rests on due process outside the CBA, violating essence. | Award not rationally derived from the CBA; essence fail. |
| Public policy exception | Federation: reinstatement does not contravene public policy. | District: reinstatement contravenes strong public policy against student sexual harassment. | Public policy exception applies; award vacated. |
| Due process basis for just cause | Federation: arbitrator’s due-process analysis within CBA bounds. | District: due-process violations outside the CBA necessitate reversal. | Due process concerns not supported by CBA; however, public policy grounds prevail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit No. 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit No. 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA/NEA, 595 Pa. 648 (Pa. 2007) (essence test two-prong framework; arbitrator must derive award from CBA)
- Cheyney University, State System of Higher Education v. State College and University Professional Association (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1999) (two-prong essence test; deference to arbitration if within CBA and rationally derived)
- Office of the Attorney General v. Council 13, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 577 Pa. 257 (Pa. 2004) (undefined terms may be interpreted by arbitrator when not defined in CBA)
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Teamsters Local Union No. 77, 45 A.3d 1159 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (arbitrator’s award based on outside settlement language not rationally derived from CBA)
- Slippery Rock Univ. of Pa. v. Ass’n of Pa. State Coll. & Univ. Faculties, 916 A.2d 736 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (arbitrator’s burden-of-proof analysis not grounded in CBA when outside terms applied)
- Shamokin Area School District v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees District Council 86, 20 A.3d 579 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (narrow public policy exception; reinstatement may contravene public policy)
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires notice and opportunity to respond before termination)
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, Cnty. and Mun. Emps., 956 A.2d 477 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (Title IX and OCR guidance underpin public policy against harassment)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960) (essence test: arbitrator may look to guidance beyond the CBA but must derive award from it)
- Office of the Attorney General v. Council 13, 577 Pa. 257 (Pa. 2004) (see above; included for due-process-context in essence analysis)
- Slippery Rock Univ. v. Ass’n of Pa. State Coll. & Univ. Faculties, 916 A.2d 736 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (see above; reflexive mention in opinion about essence)