29 A.3d 773
Pa.2011Background
- Scranton was a financially distressed municipality under Act 47 with recovery plans overseen by a plan coordinator appointed by DCED.
- The 2002 Recovery Plan imposed cost-containment measures including labor provisions; it stated mandatory implementation if disagreements led to arbitration, but funded some upward adjustments with no retroactive changes.
- Act 111 interest arbitrations between the City and Unions (IAFF and FOP) produced 2003–2007 awards; the panels increased some compensation and benefits despite distress.
- City-appointed arbitrators dissented, arguing awards violated the Recovery Plan and were illegal, while Union-appointed arbitrators defended the plan’s spirit and limitations.
- Common Pleas and Commonwealth Court vacated or modified the awards under Section 252 of Act 47, holding that recovery plans restricted Act 111 awards, and that the awards should be reconciled with the Plan.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court, holding Section 252 does not apply to Act 111 interest arbitration awards and remanding for reinstatement of the original awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 47 § 252 applies to Act 111 arbitration awards | Unions: § 252 includes arbitration settlements, excluding awards. | City/Intervenors: § 252 applies to arbitration settlements/awards. | § 252 does not apply to Act 111 awards. |
| What is the proper construction of 'arbitration settlement' in § 252 | Ambiguous term; should cover arbitration awards. | Settlement language should be read narrowly as voluntary accords. | Ambiguity resolved in favor of not extending § 252 to void Act 111 awards. |
| Public policy balance between Act 47 and Act 111 goals | Act 111 balance should be preserved; Act 47 should not override arbitration rights. | Act 47 goals to restore fiscal health may supersede Act 111 incentives. | Act 111 protections remain strong; Act 47 does not displaced Act 111 awards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinsburg Police Officers Ass'n ex rel. Harder v. Commonwealth, 535 Pa. 425 (1993) (Act 47 interacts with Act 111 labor rights; standards for review)
- City of Farrell v. FOP, Lodge No. 34, 538 Pa. 75 (1994) (Act 252 interplay with recovery plans; limits on awards)
- State Conference of State Police Lodges of the FOP v. State, 525 Pa. 40 (1990) (Arbitration awards and eligibility to be affected by Act 47)
- Pittsburgh Fire Fighters, Local No. 1 ex rel. King v. Yablonsky, 867 A.2d 666 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (Construction of Act 47 § 252 relative to arbitration)
- City of Scranton v. IAFF, 964 A.2d 464, Pa.Cmwlth.2009 (2009) (En banc; § 252 interaction with Act 111 consistent with State Conference)
- City of Scranton v. E.B. Jermyn Lodge No. 2 FOP, 965 A.2d 359, Pa.Cmwlth.2009 (2009) (En banc; § 252 interaction with Act 111)