City of Allentown v. Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters, City of Allentown v. Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters

Background

The case concerns an Act 111 arbitration award imposing a mandatory minimum number of firefighters per shift for the City of Allentown and International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302.
The Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas issued an order (September 8, 2014) that was appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed in part and reversed in part (Aug. 7, 2015). The matter was then before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Central legal question: whether an Act 111 arbitration panel may impose a mandatory shift-manning requirement and whether such an award unduly infringes on municipal managerial prerogatives.
The Supreme Court majority held the mandatory manning provision was an arbitrable subject and the arbitration panel did not exceed its powers in imposing it.
Justice Dougherty (concurring) agrees with the outcome but insists that a public employer must present evidentiary support showing how and why a provision unduly infringes managerial rights; mere assertions are insufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a mandatory shift-manning provision is an arbitrable subject under Act 111	IAFF: Panel may address terms and conditions of employment, including manning	City: Manning unduly infringes on managerial prerogatives and implementation requires employer control	Court: Provision is arbitrable; panel did not exceed powers in imposing it
Whether an Act 111 award setting a minimum number of firefighters per shift should be vacated for undue infringement absent evidentiary support	City: Award should be vacated because it unduly infringes managerial rights; employer’s assertion suffices	IAFF: No blanket requirement that testimonial/documentary evidence must be presented in all cases	Court (majority): Rejected a rigid rule requiring evidence in every case; panel did not exceed authority; award stands
Whether reviewing courts may engage in fact-finding when applying narrow certiorari review to undue-infringement claims	City: Argued record lacked evidence of undue infringement	IAFF: Narrow certiorari limits courts to specific grounds; courts should not substitute fact-finding for arbitrators	Concurrence: Requires evidentiary record so courts can review without creating appellate fact-finding; majority declined to require evidence in all cases
What standard governs review of Act 111 arbitration awards for excess of power or infringement on managerial prerogatives	IAFF: Deference to arbitrators; case-specific inquiry	City: Protection of managerial rights requires scrutiny and evidence	Court: Applies narrow certiorari review; upholds arbitration unless arbitrators exceeded jurisdiction or power; concurrence urges evidentiary development for undue-infringement claims

Key Cases Cited

Washington Arbitration Case, 259 A.2d 437 (Pa. 1969) (recognizing narrow certiorari review of Act 111 awards)
Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers’ Ass’n, 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (discussing Act 111 and collective-bargaining framework for police and firefighters)
Twp. of Moon v. Police Officers of the Twp. of Moon, 498 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1985) (recognition of police/firefighters as a special class under Act 111 amendments)
Borough of Ellwood City v. Pa. Labor Rels. Bd., 998 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2010) (case-specific inquiry on whether an ordinance unduly infringes working conditions)
City of Philadelphia v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 22, 999 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2010) (finding undue infringement based on award-specific implementation procedures)
Dep’t of Corr. v. Pa. State Corr. Officers Ass’n, 12 A.3d 346 (Pa. 2011) (relying on record evidence about unique job conditions to treat litigation protection as a term of employment)
Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5 v. City of Phila., 129 A.3d 1221 (Pa. 2015) (describing narrow certiorari review scope)
Frackville Borough Police Dep’t v. PLRB, 701 A.2d 632 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (distinguishing bargaining over pensions from pension administration)