County of Allegheny, PA v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union
County of Allegheny, PA v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union - 744 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Allegheny County (County) and the Prison Employees Independent Union (Union) are bound by a CBA that includes Articles XXVIII (bidding/Floaters), XXX (light duty), and XV (management rights).
- Samuel Pastore, a corrections officer injured in 2007, was placed on light duty and designated a Floater; he was assigned a Mon–Fri 7 a.m.–3 p.m. schedule with Sat/Sun pass days.
- The Union grieved in 2014, alleging the County gave Pastore schedule/pass-day preferences that should have been awarded by seniority to more senior officers (Reilly, Isenberg).
- Arbitrator sustained the grievance, holding the County cannot assign schedules or pass days to Pastore that were denied to more senior bargaining-unit members; he characterized the violation as continuing and tied to posted schedules.
- Trial court denied the County’s petition to vacate; Commonwealth Court affirmed, applying the essence test and finding the Award rationally derived from the CBA and timely as to the March 9, 2014 schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Union's Argument | County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assignment of light-duty shift/pass days is arbitrable or a non‑arbitrable managerial prerogative | CBA Article XXX limits management rights for light duty by requiring officers (including Floaters) to express shift/pass-day choices by seniority; thus arbitrable | Creation/assignment of light duty is a managerial prerogative under PERA; related scheduling decisions are not subject to arbitration | Held arbitrable: Articles XXX and XXVIII modify management rights and authorize arbitration of shift/pass-day assignments for Floaters |
| Whether the Arbitrator’s award "draws its essence" from the CBA (i.e., is rationally derived) | Award enforces CBA seniority provisions for Floaters; Arbitrator limited remedy to future schedule assignments denying seniority | County argued the Award exceeded the CBA and managerial rights and so fails the essence test | Held: Award rationally derives from CBA language (Articles XXVIII, XXX, XV); remedy limited and reconcilable with the CBA |
| Whether the grievance was untimely (filed >7 years after initial 2007 assignment) | Each newly posted schedule may create a new violation (continuing violation); grievance timely as to schedules after March 9, 2014; relief not retroactive | Grievance should have been filed within 5 days of the original 2007 assignment under contractual time limits | Held: Arbitrator reasonably treated the grievance as timely with respect to the operative March 9, 2014 schedule and continuing/new violations on schedule postings |
Key Cases Cited
- Slippery Rock Univ. of Pennsylvania v. Ass'n of Pennsylvania State College & Univ. Faculties, 916 A.2d 736 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (sets forth the essence test for reviewing arbitration awards)
- Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Ass'n, 56 A.3d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (application of essence test and deference to arbitrator)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Personnel Ass'n, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa.) (narrow public‑policy exception to enforcing arbitration awards)
- Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education v. Ass'n of Pennsylvania State College & Univ. Faculties, 98 A.3d 5 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer bound by CBA when it elects to bargain managerial matters)
- Teamsters Local 77 & 250 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 786 A.2d 299 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (creation of light duty is managerial prerogative)
- County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Indep. Union, 341 A.2d 578 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguished; parties here negotiated specific limits on management rights)