Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Ass'n
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 611
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- DOC petitions to vacate the grievance award's grandfathering of pre-2008 bid-post designations under repealed 1988 side letters.
- Section 8 of the 2008-2011 CBA defines bid posts and provides a new, uniform process for designation.
- The 1988 side letters had allowed designation by either specific criteria or other relevant factors; those side letters were repealed.
- Arbitrator grandfathered existing mutual bid-post designations despite some conflicting with Section 8.
- This appeal argues the grandfathering violates Section 8 and cannot be reconciled with the 2008-2011 CBA.
- Court vacates the award on the bid-post issue and remands for reconsideration under the 2008-2011 criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandfathering pre-2008 bid posts violates Section 8 | Department argues the award repurposes nonconforming large part of Section 8. | Association contends past practice informs intent and is consistent with Section 8. | Vacated; remanded for application of Section 8 criteria. |
| Whether past practice can draw essence from the CBA under the essence test | Past practice cannot override the explicit Section 8 language. | Past practice clarifies ambiguities and reflects party intent. | Past practice cannot supply grandfathering beyond Section 8; essence not drawn. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority under Article 35 by relying on pre-2008 designations | Arbitrator added/subtracted by using pre-2008 designations. | Arbitrator reasonably relied on prior mutual understandings to implement open issues. | Yes, vacated; remanded to apply Section 8 criteria. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, 476 Pa. 27 (1977) (past practice limited when conflicting with contract language)
- Chester Upland School District, 423 A.2d 437 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (past practice allowed where contract silent and not waived)
- Danville Area School District v. Danville Area Education Association, 562 Pa. 238 (2000) (past practice can become term/condition of employment)
- Penns Manor Area School District v. Penns Manor Area Educational Support Personnel Association, 953 A.2d 614 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (limits on past practice when robust contract language exists)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass'n, 595 Pa. 648 (2007) (essence review framework and deference to arbitration)
- In re Appeal of Chester Upland School District, 55 Pa.Cmwlth. 102 (1980) (illustrates when past practice is permissible under contract language)
- Northwest Area School District v. Northwest Area Education Association, 954 A.2d 111 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (essence test and standards for vacatur)
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n v. Teamsters Local 250, 988 A.2d 789 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (merits review cautionary in arbitration contexts)
- City of Jeannette v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Boards, 890 A.2d 1154 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (past practice can be used to interpret contracts when not conflicting)
- Danville Area School District v. Danville Area Education Association, 562 Pa. 238 (2000) (verified above)