111 A.3d 794
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- The Fraternal Order of Police (Union) and the City of Pittsburgh had a CBA (2010–2014) that allowed off-duty officers to perform paid "secondary employment" for private employers at a specified overtime rate, while on-duty officers were paid their regular CBA wages.
- Officers assigned on-duty to traffic/control at large events sometimes worked alongside higher‑paid off‑duty officers hired by private secondary employers; several on‑duty officers filed grievances seeking the secondary employment rate.
- An arbitrator sustained the grievances on a prospective basis, ordering the City to pay on‑duty officers the same rate paid to off‑duty secondary employees, reasoning equitable concerns made disparate pay unjust.
- The City petitioned the Court of Common Pleas, which vacated the award, finding the arbitrator exceeded authority by effectively rewriting the CBA and acting as an interest arbitrator rather than a grievance arbitrator.
- The Union appealed, arguing the award merely interpreted the CBA and was therefore insulated by Act 111’s narrow certiorari review; this Court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction/powers by ordering equal pay for on‑duty officers | Arbitrator interpreted the CBA (secondary employment) and resolved a grievance—award concerns wages (terms of employment) and is reviewable only for correctness of procedure, not substance | Arbitrator ignored the CBA’s actual terms and imposed a new contractual obligation—he acted as an interest arbitrator and rewrote the CBA | Held: Arbitrator exceeded authority; award imposed a new term and relied on equity, which grievance arbitration cannot do |
| Whether the trial court improperly exceeded narrow certiorari review in vacating the award | Award was an interpretation of the CBA and should be sustained under deferential Act 111 review | Trial court properly applied narrow certiorari because the arbitrator did not interpret the CBA and thus exceeded jurisdiction; courts may review whether an award rests on contract interpretation or on creating new terms | Held: Trial court acted within narrow certiorari scope; it was permissible to vacate the award because the arbitrator acted beyond grievance arbitration powers |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Ass’n, 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (describes narrow certiorari review of Act 111 arbitration awards)
- Borough of Gettysburg v. Teamsters Local No. 776, 103 A.3d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (discusses requirements for Act 111 interest arbitration and scope of judicial review)
- Township of Moon v. Police Officers of the Township of Moon, 498 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1985) (defines interest arbitration as resolving an impasse over terms of a new contract)