62 A.3d 486
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Sibio, a former Dunmore Active Reserve Officer, sues the Borough and the Dunmore Police Association for breach of a labor contract arising from an Act 111 arbitration award and for breach of the Union's duty of fair representation.
- The 2001 CBA distinguished Full-Time Officers from Active Reserve Officers, granting different salaries and benefits and mandating grievance arbitration; the 2001 CBA also provided seniority in favor of Full-Time Officers.
- In 2005, Act 111 arbitration awarded an Examinations-based path to Full-Time status for Active Reserve Officers who pass a civil service exam; the exam was administered by an outside company with the Union having no role in scoring.
- Scores showed Sibio failing the Grammar section; Cali and Garzella also failed or underperformed on sections, with pass/fail communicated by the Civil Service Commission.
- The Union chose not to file a grievance on Sibio, Cali, and Garzella and instead discussed potential responses; Union minutes reflect a decision not to pursue the grievance.
- Sibio resigned on July 1, 2005; Cali and Garzella remained; in federal actions, district court granted summary judgment against federal claims and dismissed state law claims without prejudice; Third Circuit affirmed those rulings.
- In this Pennsylvania case, the trial court granted Borough summary judgment and limited Sibio’s remedies against the Union to nunc pro tunc arbitration for breach of fair representation; Sibio eventually won a jury verdict against the Union on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sibio may sue the Borough for breach of Act 111 Contract absent employer participation | Sibio asserts the Borough actively participated in the Union’s bad faith. | Borough contends only active participation or conspiracy justifies override of arbitration. | No active participation shown; suit barred; arbitration remedy required. |
| Whether the Union's duty of fair representation can be litigated in court when no employer involvement exists | Sibio argues the Union breached duties and court should award damages beyond nunc pro tunc arbitration. | Union asserts relief limited to nunc pro tunc arbitration absent employer participation. | Remedy against Union limited to nunc pro tunc arbitration; court cannot award broader damages. |
| Whether there was evidence of conspiracy or collusion between Borough and Union regarding the grievance | Sibio contends Borough's acquiescence or non-objecting conduct indicates collusion. | No evidence of collusion or active participation; decisions were internal to the Union. | No evidentiary basis for conspiracy or collusion; summary judgment affirmed on this point. |
| Whether Vaca v. Sipes applies to this state-law Act 111 case | Sibio relies on Vaca for broader relief against the Union. | Martino rejects Vaca’s applicability in public employee labor disputes under Pennsylvania law. | Vaca inapplicable; Martino governs; relief limited to arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martino v. Transport Workers’ Union of Philadelphia, Local 234-, 505 Pa. 391, 480 A.2d 242 (Pa. 1984) (public employee cannot sue employer for contract breach absent employer participation)
- Ziccardi v. Commonwealth, 500 Pa. 326, 456 A.2d 979 (Pa. 1982) (employer participation required to defeat arbitration doctrine)
- Runski v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2500, 142 Pa.Cmwlth. 662, 598 A.2d 347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (evidence of collusion required; mere alignment of positions insufficient)
- Reisinger v. Department of Corrections, 130 Pa. Cmwlth. 585, 568 A.2d 1357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (arbitration remedy framework for labor disputes involving public employees)
- Speer v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 111 Pa.Cmwlth. 91, 533 A.2d 504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (limits on judicial review of union actions in labor disputes)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (federal labor law; rejected in Martino for public employees)