Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5, of the Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia
129 A.3d 1221
| Pa. | 2015Background
- The collective bargaining agreement between the City of Philadelphia and the FOP expired June 30, 2009; parties proceeded to Act 111 interest arbitration and the panel issued a 2009 Award (covering July 1, 2009–June 30, 2013). Except as modified by the 2009 Award, prior contract terms remained.
- Section 14 of the 2009 Award required payment of premium overtime (minimum 4 hours at 2.5x) when officers did not receive at least 48 hours’ advance notice of court appearances on a scheduled day off; Section 6 relaxed residency requirements for certain officers; Section 22 retained the panel’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding implementation.
- After the Award, the Police Department adopted an implementation policy treating email/voicemail notice as sufficient and denying premium overtime when a previously-notified appearance was continued to the next day without fresh notice.
- The FOP filed grievances and invoked the panel’s retained jurisdiction to challenge the City’s implementation; the City proposed electronic notification at an implementation hearing and argued manner of notice was tied to implementation and residency changes.
- The reconvened panel (2–1) issued a 2011 Award allowing electronic notice, requiring officers to provide contact info and voicemail, and denying premium overtime or allowing discipline for noncompliance. The FOP appealed; lower courts split, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FOP) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Act 111 interest arbitration panel may decide an issue (manner of notice) that was not bargained to impasse or submitted in the original interest arbitration | Panel exceeded authority; manner of notice was never submitted to interest arbitration and was not reasonably subsumed in the 2009 notice/compensation issue | Implementation hearing put notice-delivery methods before the panel; manner of notice is linked to timing/compensation and residency changes, so it was properly considered | Court held panel exceeded its authority: interest arbitration panels may decide only issues submitted or reasonably subsumed in them; manner of notice was not so subsumed, so 2011 Award invalid as to that relief |
| Whether a panel’s retained implementation jurisdiction allows reopening or adding terms not addressed in the Award | Retained jurisdiction limited to implementing expressly bargained terms; cannot be used to reopen or rewrite terms of employment | Retention of implementation jurisdiction permits resolving practical implementation questions that arise post-award | Court held retained implementation jurisdiction does not permit creating significant new terms that were never submitted to interest arbitration |
| Scope of judicial review under Act 111 (narrow certiorari) for awards addressing issues not placed before arbitrators | Award addressing issues not placed before the panel is an excess of arbitrators’ powers and reviewable under narrow certiorari | Panel’s decision reviewed only narrowly; here factual record and procedures were regular so award should stand | Court treated the question as reviewable under narrow certiorari and found excess of power because the panel decided an issue beyond those submitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Borough of Ellwood City v. PLRB, 998 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2010) (describing Act 111’s balance between public safety and collective bargaining and role of interest arbitration)
- City of Philadelphia v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 22, 999 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2010) (discussing scope of interest arbitration authority)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Ass’n (Betancourt), 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (explaining narrow certiorari review for arbitration awards)
- Washington Arbitration Case, 259 A.2d 437 (Pa. 1969) (establishing limited judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Appeal of Upper Providence Police, 526 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1987) (holding awards on issues not placed before board reflect excess of powers)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (arbitrator’s authority is not a license to fashion a ‘‘better agreement’’)