129 A.3d 1285
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- FOP (police union) and City of Pittsburgh had a CBA (2010–2014) with a reopen clause for residency if state law changed (Section 18(S)).
- Pennsylvania amended the Civil Service Act (Act 195, Oct. 24, 2012) to state a second-class city "may" require police to reside in the city (changing a prior "shall").
- FOP demanded bargaining over a non‑residency clause; parties impassed and an Act 111 interest arbitration panel issued a Supplemental Award replacing a city‑only residency rule with a 25‑air‑mile limit.
- Pittsburgh voters adopted a Home Rule Charter amendment requiring all city employees (including police) to domicile in the City by referendum prior to the arbitration award taking effect.
- The City petitioned the court of common pleas to vacate the award as beyond the panel’s jurisdiction and illegal; common pleas upheld the award. The Commonwealth Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (FOP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration panel had authority to modify residency terms | Act 195 made residency a managerial prerogative and preempted bargaining; panel lacked jurisdiction | Act 111 preserves bargaining over terms/conditions, including residency; panel may decide under CBA reopen clause | Arbitration panel lacked authority to override the City’s Home Rule Charter residency requirement; reversal of common pleas |
| Whether enforcement of the award would require the City to perform an illegal act | Award would force City to violate its Home Rule Charter (an enactment with state‑statute force) and thus is illegal | Award concerns terms/conditions of employment which Act 111 allows arbitrators to set; not an illegal act | Award would compel an illegal act because the Charter’s residency requirement cannot be bargained away by city officials |
| Effect of Act 195 on bargaining/residency rights | Act 195 signaled legislative intent to allow cities to require residency and thus remove residency from mandatory bargaining | Act 195 merely permits residency requirements but does not eliminate Act 111 bargaining rights | Court treated Charter (adopted by referendum) as superseding bargaining authority here; Act 195 did not change outcome because Charter requirement has force of statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia, 84 A.3d 343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (scope of review for Act 111 arbitration awards)
- Butler v. Butler Police Dep’t, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 32, 780 A.2d 847 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (arbitrators cannot order employer to perform illegal acts; limited to terms employer could agree to voluntarily)
- Wecht v. Roddey, 815 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (home rule charters supersede former municipal code provisions and are construed liberally in favor of the municipality)
- Township of Moon v. Police Officers of the Township of Moon, 498 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1985) (residency is a bargainable term/condition of employment under Act 111)
- City of Wilkes-Barre v. City of Wilkes-Barre Police Benevolent Ass’n, 814 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (previously held Act 111 bargaining could overcome a home rule residency provision)
- Spencer v. City of Reading Charter Bd., 97 A.3d 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (describing force/status of home rule charter provisions)
- Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia, 101 A.3d 79 (Pa. 2014) (framework for determining preeminence between governmental entities’ regulatory authority)
- Department of General Services v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Ass’n, 483 A.2d 448 (Pa. 1984) (analytical process for resolving legislative preeminence issues)