Commonwealth, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Ass'n
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 290
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- The Department of Corrections suspends eight SCI-Pittsburgh officers for alleged inmate mistreatment in the F-Block reception unit; Nicoletti is verbally suspended Jan 5, 2011, with a confirmation letter Jan 10.
- Six other officers are verbally suspended Apr 1, 2011, with confirmation letters issued the same day.
- PSCOA files grievance reports on Nicoletti (Feb 7, 2011) and on the other seven officers (Jun 27, 2011) alleging violations of the CBA.
- Arbitrator conducts bifurcated expedited hearing on timeliness (Oct 28, 2011); Award (Feb 29, 2012) finds grievances timely and arbitrable.
- Department appeals; questions focus on whether the 15-working-day filing deadline in the CBA was violated and whether the award drew essence from the CBA.
- Pennsylvania courts apply the essence-of-the-agreement test and reverse awards that fail to draw its essence; here the court reverses the award as not drawn from the CBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of filing grievances under the CBA. | Department argues filing was untimely under 15-day limit. | Grievants contend continuing-violation theory tolls timely filing. | Timeliness not rationally derived; award reversed. |
| Public policy against inmate mistreatment. | Award supposedly upholds public policy protecting inmates from staff abuse. | Court need not enforce an award that ignores contract terms; public policy not controlling here. | Court did not address public policy issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Ass'n, 38 A.3d 975 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (essence-of-the-agreement standard; deference to arbitral awards)
- State Sys. of Higher Educ. v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Local Union No. 509, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 193, 612 A.2d 645 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (arbitrator must not add provisions not in the contract)
- State Sys. of Higher Educ. (Cheyney Univ.) v. State Coll. Univ. Prof'l Ass'n (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135, 743 A.2d 405 (Pa. 1999) (essence of the bargaining agreement; deference to arbitration)
- Riverview Sch. Dist. v. Riverview Educ. Ass'n, PSEA-NEA, 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 644, 639 A.2d 974 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (arbitrator must draw essence from the agreement; cannot rewrite contract)