County of Lehigh v. Lehigh County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 204
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- CBA for 2006–2009, executed March 2009, governing Lehigh County Sheriff employee relations.
- A 2008 posting created a warrant service position; in 2009 Sedgwick, a part-time deputy, was appointed to that position without posting response.
- Union grieved alleged CBA OIC violations by sheriff’s appointment of a part-time deputy with lower seniority.
- Arbitrator McConnell held May 24, 2010 that the posting was violated and ordered reposting and proper award following the CBA.
- County petitioned June 23, 2010 to vacate the award; common pleas court denied May 11, 2011; County appealed; court affirmed April 24, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the award draws its essence from the CBA | County argues the award misreads Article III, §4 and intrudes on Sheriff’s rights. | Union contends OIC bidding is within the CBA; sheriff participated in negotiations and signed. | Yes, award draws essence from the CBA. |
| Whether the award conflicts with statute governing sheriff’s hire/fire rights | County asserts §1620 preserves hiring/supervisory rights; award infringes. | Union argues OIC aligns with bargaining, not executive prerogatives. | No conflict; award consistent with §1620 as construed. |
| Public policy exception to essence test | County asserts public policy prohibits waiving Sheriff’s statutory rights. | Union maintains consultative process validated by Sheriff’s signature. | Public policy exception not invoked to vacate. |
| Effect of Sheriff’s signature and consent to CBA terms | County emphasizes Sheriff never conceded relinquishment of management rights. | Sheriff’s signature evidences consent to OIC and bidding procedures. | Sheriff’s signature supports enforceability of the CBA terms. |
| Compliance with consultation requirements under PERA precedents | County cites Ellenbogen, Della Vecchia, Troutman to demand input from row officers. | Union argues adequate input and signature satisfied consultation. | Consultation satisfied; award sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion Center Area School District v. Marion Center Area Education Association, 982 A.2d 1041 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (two-pronged essence test applied to arbitral awards)
- Erie County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 908 A.2d 369 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (row officers’ rights not automatically bargained away)
- Rebert v. York County Detectives Association, 909 A.2d 906 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (arbitrator may decide on management prerogatives under CBA with proper consent)
- Troutman v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 735 A.2d 192 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (recognizes consultation requirements with row officers)
- Ellenbogen v. County of Allegheny, 479 Pa. 429 (1978) (role of county commissioners as managerial representatives in bargaining)
- Della Vecchia v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 537 A.2d 805 (Pa. 1988) (CONTEXT: PERA bargaining and row officers’ involvement)
- Pittsburgh Joint Collective Bargaining Comm. v. City of Pittsburgh, 481 Pa. 66 (1978) (sanctity of bargaining process in public employment)