39 A.3d 1010
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- City, as a home rule municipality, and the FOP as the police union were bound by an Act 111 interest arbitration award governing post-retirement health benefits.
- The award provided full post-retirement health insurance for pre-October 11, 2007 hires (with spouse and dependents) and officer-only coverage for post-October 11, 2007 hires.
- The City adopted a 2007 Recovery Plan under Act 47 directing retiree healthcare for pre-2007 hires to be retained for them only, not dependents.
- The FOP petitioned to partially vacate the award, contending Section 4(a) unlawfully diminished post-retirement benefits for current and former officers.
- The trial court vacated Section 4(a), and the City appealed; the Supreme Court later noted City of Scranton's ruling on Act 47 implications but affirmed on Home Rule grounds.
- The issue remains whether post-retirement benefits for current employees are protected from diminution under 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(c)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 2962(c)(3) protect post-retirement benefits for current employees from diminution by arbitration awards? | City argues the benefits are part of a retirement system protected from diminishment. | FOP argues either 2962(c)(3) does not apply or that prior caselaw allows reduction through bargaining. | Upper Providence controls; benefits cannot be diminished. |
| Is Upper Providence controlling for current case involving a home rule municipality? | City/ allies contend Upper Providence applies to current employees. | FOP contends Upper Providence does not govern here. | Upper Providence controls; the award’s Section 4(a) diminishes post-retirement benefits. |
| What is effect of Commonwealth-FOP II and Supreme-FOP II on this ruling? | City/ allies rely on these decisions to limit reductions; FOP challenges rationale. | FOP argues those cases support different reasoning than Upper Providence. | Courts decline to apply Commonwealth-FOP II rationale where inconsistent with Upper Providence; Upper Providence governs. |
| Should constitutional considerations be addressed beyond Home Rule concerns? | Not essential; focus remains on Home Rule protections. | Constitutional challenges may be raised if applicable. | Constitutional issues not reached; affirm on Home Rule grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. 501 (Pa. 1987) (post-retirement benefits cannot be diminished under Home Rule Charter Law)
- City of Scranton v. Firefighters Local Union No. 60, of the International Association of Fire Fighters, — Pa. — (Pa. 2011) (Act 252/impingement on interest arbitration awards; moot on Act 47 issues)
- Commonwealth-FOP II, 911 A.2d 651 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (limited by Upper Providence; not controlling for present employees' benefits)
- Supreme-FOP II, 595 Pa. 47 (Pa. 2007) (premium cap not a prohibited diminishment; did not resolve whether benefits are part of pension system)
- Millcreek Township Police Association v. Millcreek Township, 960 A.2d 904 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (limited application; constitutional issues not dispositive here)