Lackawanna County v. Lackawanna County Adult and Juvenile Probation and Domestic Relations Section Employees Association
177 A.3d 1058
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2018Background
- The Lackawanna County Adult and Juvenile Probation and Domestic Relations Section Employees Association (Association) and Lackawanna County (County) were bound by a CBA effective 2010–2017; Article 16 lists 14 paid holidays but does not name Christmas Eve or New Year’s Eve.
- Beginning around 2001 (testimony variably placed earlier), the Domestic Relations director (Luongo), with apparent approval from the President Judge, granted a rotating “gift day” (half employees Christmas Eve, half New Year’s Eve); written vacation policies from multiple years referenced the practice.
- In 2014 a settlement altered gift-day eligibility to seniority-based; in 2015 Luongo stopped granting gift days after labor counsel warned of potential unfair labor practice exposure because only part of the unit received the benefit.
- The Association filed a grievance alleging the gift-day practice was a binding past practice; the arbitrator found the practice was established, fell within the CBA by incorporation as a past practice, and ordered reinstatement per the 2014 settlement terms.
- The County petitioned the trial court to vacate the award arguing (1) the award did not "draw its essence" from the CBA and (2) the award violated separation-of-powers public policy because it effectively bound the judicial branch; the trial court vacated the award.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed: it held the arbitrator rationally derived the award from the CBA because no broad integration clause barred incorporation of past practice, and found no separation-of-powers public-policy violation under the facts (the judiciary had been involved/approved and court personnel can be bound by past practice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Association) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award "draws its essence" from the CBA | Arbitrator properly incorporated the long-standing gift-day past practice into the CBA; courts must give great deference to arbitrators | CBA’s provisions on holidays and anti-modification language show parties intended the CBA to be a complete expression excluding gift days | Court: Award satisfies essence test — no broad integration clause bars past practice; arbitrator’s interpretation could be rationally derived from the CBA |
| Whether the award violates the public-policy exception (separation of powers) | (Implicit) No public-policy violation because the judiciary knew of and approved the practice; past practice binds court personnel | Award impermissibly interferes with judicial branch authority over court personnel and budgeting, violating separation of powers | Court: No public-policy violation on these facts — judiciary had been involved/approved and Common Pleas (a court employer) can be bound by past practice; award reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (sets forth two‑prong essence test and narrow public‑policy exception)
- State Sys. of Higher Educ. (Cheyney Univ.) v. State Coll. Univ. Prof’l Ass’n (PSEA‑NEA), 743 A.2d 403 (Pa. 1999) (discusses scope of arbitrator authority under essence test)
- County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, 381 A.2d 849 (Pa. 1977) (past practice cannot be incorporated where CBA contains a broad integration clause)
- Dep’t of Corr. v. Pa. State Corr. Officers Ass’n, 38 A.3d 975 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (a past practice cannot be used where it conflicts with CBA language)
- City of Carbondale v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 63, 531 A.2d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (where no broad integration clause, arbitrators may incorporate past practices)
- Penns Manor Area Sch. Dist. v. Penns Manor Area Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, 953 A.2d 614 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (arbitration awards entitled to deference; discussion of past practice and bargaining obligations)
- Commonwealth of Pa. ex rel. Bradley v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 388 A.2d 736 (Pa. 1978) (court employees are public employees under the Public Employe Relations Act and can be bound by collective‑bargaining processes)