Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Ass'n
12 A.3d 346
| Pa. | 2011Background
- CBA expiration June 30, 2004; Article 33, §21 provided legal representation and indemnification for civil judgments; Chapter 39 of Title 4 of Pa. Code governs defense and indemnification; arbitration under PERA §805 produced Paragraph 18, mandating counsel and defense in criminal and civil actions; Commonwealth Court vacated Paragraph 18 as exceeding arbitration authority; Supreme Court granted limited review focusing on Section 805 and excess-of-power analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paragraph 18 is a bargainable term or condition of employment for H-1 unit members. | Union: litigation protection is a bargainable term of employment. | Commonwealth: Chapter 39 regulates, not bargainable; or at least some provisions are managerial prerogatives. | Paragraph 18 is a bargainable term for H-1 unit members. |
| Whether Paragraph 18, as applied, exceeds the arbitrators' authority by violating or superseding Chapter 39 regulations. | Union: regulations are binding norms; Paragraph 18 may implement discretionary benefits. | Commonwealth: Paragraph 18 confines or conflicts with mandatory provisions of Chapter 39. | Paragraph 18 is enforceable to the extent it does not require illegal acts; it is not an excess of authority to the extent it aligns with discretionary benefits allowed by regulations. |
| Whether Paragraph 18 should have been vacated entirely or only to the extent it contravenes the regulations. | Union: award could be implemented with limited modification. | Commonwealth: award impermissibly overrides regulatory discretion. | Paragraph 18 survives except where it requires an illegal act or directly contravenes specific regulations. |
| Whether the appropriate standard of review is narrow certiorari and how it applies to PERA §805 awards. | Union: standard should be narrow certiorari, as in Act 111 cases. | Commonwealth: similar standard should apply; avoid broad review. | Narrow certiorari applies; review limited to excess of power and related issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Betancourt, 540 Pa. 66, 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (limits of narrow certiorari in Act 111 context; arbitration awards may be final yet review is narrow.)
- FOP, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia, 564 Pa. 290, 768 A.2d 291 (Pa. 2001) (excess-of-power limits; awards may relate to terms and conditions of employment.)
- Washington Arbitration Case, 436 Pa. 168, 259 A.2d 437 (Pa. 1969) (arbitration may not require the employer to perform an illegal act; scope limited to lawful terms.)
- Upper Providence Police, 514 Pa. 501, 526 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1987) (excess-of-power analysis; unrelated to bargainable terms constitutes excess.)
- State College Area School District, 461 Pa. 494, 337 A.2d 262 (Pa. 1975) (distinguishes bargainable terms from inherent managerial policy for §701 vs §702.)
- Smith, 559 Pa. 586, 741 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 1999) (review of discipline in act context; limits on appellate intervention.)