City of Allentown v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters Local 302
638 Pa. 584
Pa.2017Background
- IAFF Local 302 (union) and the City of Allentown were at impasse over a successor collective bargaining agreement under Act 111; an interest arbitration panel fashioned an award covering Jan. 1, 2012–Dec. 31, 2015.
- The prior contract had set incremental minimum on-duty shift staffing (26→27→28). The arbitration panel revised that to a 25-per-shift minimum (with exceptions for unscheduled absences) and adjusted pension calculation rules.
- The City petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to vacate the award in part, arguing the minimum shift staffing requirement was a non-bargainable managerial prerogative; the trial court denied relief.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed (majority), concluding a minimum shift mandate unduly infringed municipal managerial prerogatives (impacting budgeting/level of protection); dissents would have upheld the award.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance and reversed the Commonwealth Court: it held minimum shift staffing is a mandatory subject of bargaining, implicates but does not unduly infringe managerial rights, and thus may be included in an Act 111 arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (IAFF) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a minimum number of firefighters per shift is a mandatory subject of bargaining or a non‑bargainable managerial prerogative | Minimum shift staffing is rationally related to terms/conditions of employment and firefighter safety (analogous to per‑apparatus minimums); arbitration panel’s limited mandate (25, with exceptions) balanced safety and municipal prerogatives. | Minimum shift staffing effectively sets a floor on departmental staffing and budget, constraining the City’s control over force size, budgeting, overtime, and pension costs — therefore a managerial prerogative not subject to arbitration. | The Court held minimum shift staffing is a mandatory subject of bargaining; it implicates managerial responsibilities but does not unduly infringe them here, so the arbitration panel did not exceed its powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Scranton v. IAFF, 429 A.2d 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (total force‑size mandates are managerial prerogatives)
- City of Erie v. IAFF, 459 A.2d 1320 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (minimum crew per apparatus tied to firefighter safety is arbitrable)
- Borough of Ellwood City v. PLRB, 998 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2010) (framework: topic must be rationally related to terms/conditions, may implicate managerial responsibility; if both, ask whether bargaining would unduly infringe managerial rights)
- City of Philadelphia v. IAFF, 999 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2010) (arbitration panels may award terms parties could voluntarily agree to; awards addressing inherent managerial policy exceed powers)
- Township of Moon v. Police Officers of Township of Moon, 498 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1985) (example of treating certain topics categorically as terms/conditions of employment)