179 A.3d 1167
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Millcreek Township School District (District) and the Township Educational Support Personnel Association (Association) were operating under a CBA with a clause: "No work of the bargaining unit shall be subcontracted for the life of the Agreement." The parties maintained the status quo after the CBA expired June 30, 2016.
- While negotiating a successor CBA, the District issued an RFP (request for proposals) for custodial services, received bids, reviewed the successful bidder's information, but did not execute a contract.
- The Association grieved, arguing issuance of the RFP violated the CBA’s no-subcontracting clause. An arbitrator granted the grievance, held the RFPs violated the CBA, and ordered that the RFPs could not be used in bargaining and any prior selections were null and void.
- The District petitioned to vacate the arbitration award in Erie County Common Pleas Court; the trial court affirmed the award. The District appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed (1) whether the award met the essence test (award must concern a matter within the CBA and be rationally derived from it) and (2) whether the award contravened public policy on good-faith bargaining.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (District) | Defendant's Argument (Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the CBA | RFP solicitation is not subcontracting; CBA silent on RFPs and no contract was executed, so CBA not implicated | Issuing RFP is part of the subcontracting process and thus violates the no-subcontracting provision once initiated | Court: Award fails the essence test — arbitrator exceeded authority by treating RFP issuance as subcontracting because CBA is silent on the RFP/process and no contract was made |
| Whether the award contravenes public policy of good-faith bargaining | The District issued the RFP as part of good-faith bargaining to obtain information (feasibility) and to fulfill bargaining obligations | Arbitrator found RFP chilled negotiations and was an improper bargaining tactic | Court: Award violated public policy — forbidding use of RFP information in bargaining would undermine statutory duty to bargain in good faith and conflict with PLRB precedent recognizing bid solicitations as legitimate information for bargaining |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960) (arbitrator must draw essence from the collective bargaining agreement)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (arbitrator cannot ignore plain language of the contract)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (narrow public policy exception to vacatur of arbitration awards under PERA)
- Cheyney Univ. v. State Coll. Univ. Prof’l Ass’n (PSEA-NEA), 743 A.2d 405 (Pa. 1999) (courts refuse enforcement where arbitrator’s award manifests infidelity to agreement)
- County of Allegheny v. Allegheny Court Ass’n of Prof’l Empls., 138 A.3d 701 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (application of the essence test for PERA arbitration awards)
- Neshaminy Sch. Dist. v. Neshaminy Fed’n of Teachers, 171 A.3d 334 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (public policy vacatur framework and PERA arbitration review)
- Bethel Park Sch. Dist. v. Bethel Park Fed’n of Teachers, 55 A.3d 154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (award must be rationally derived from the CBA)