122 A.3d 469
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Neshaminy School District and Neshaminy Federation of Teachers operated under an expired CBA (2008); teachers struck in Jan 2012 and again beginning June 4, 2012.
- Court injunction (June 11, 2012) limited the second strike so schools had to resume by June 14–16 to meet 180 days; shortly after the injunction the Federation said members would return June 12, but the District reopened June 13.
- Federation filed a grievance claiming a de facto lockout and lost pay for June 12, 2012; arbitration sustained the grievance and ordered make-whole pay for that date.
- Arbitrator concluded the District effectuated a constructive lockout and breached the implied covenant of good faith by not consulting administrators or exploring in-service options for June 12.
- Trial court affirmed the award under the two-prong ‘‘essence’’ test (issue within CBA; award rationally derived from CBA).
- Commonwealth Court majority reversed: held part of the award (constructive lockout and breach of good faith) was contrary to public policy and not derived from the CBA; vacated the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Federation) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District’s refusal to reopen on June 12 was a constructive lockout | District’s denial prevented teachers from working a contractual work day; constitutes lockout | Superintendent lawfully exercised discretion under PA School Code §1101‑A when short notice made reopening infeasible | Majority: Not a lockout; arbitrator misapplied §1101‑A and award contravenes public policy (vacated) |
| Whether arbitrator could rely on School Code §1101‑A language to find a lockout | §1101‑A’s lockout exclusion applies only to cancellations at start of strikes (arbitrator) | §1101‑A permits superintendent discretion and excludes cancellations on intended strike days from being lockouts; no evidence of coercive purpose | Majority: Arbitrator ignored §1101‑A’s plain language; conclusion contrary to law and public policy (vacated) |
| Whether District breached implied covenant of good faith by not consulting administrators before declining June 12 | Superintendent failed to exercise due diligence or consult cabinet; breached implied duty tied to Article X (work year) | No CBA provision required superintendent consultation; decision was managerial discretion and based on legitimate readiness concerns | Majority: Award imposing a duty to consult reads new terms into the CBA and fails essence test (vacated) |
| Whether the arbitration award draws its essence from the CBA (two‑prong test) | Grievance involves wages/work year (Article X); award rationally derived from duty to implement normal work year | Award relied on statutory interpretation and imposed obligations not in CBA; exceeded arbitrator’s authority | Majority: First prong met but portions of award fail second prong or violate public policy; vacated those parts |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraternal Order of Transit Police v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, 114 A.3d 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (describes essence test/deferential review of arbitration awards)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit No. 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Personnel Ass'n, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (public‑policy exception to enforcing arbitration awards requires a well‑defined dominant policy)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 111 A.3d 794 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (arbitrator may not read new terms into a CBA or alter managerial prerogatives)
- White v. City of Philadelphia, 102 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (explains judgment n.o.v./standard applied under §7302(d)(2) review)
- State System of Higher Education v. State College Univ. Prof. Ass'n (PSEA‑NEA), 743 A.2d 405 (Pa. 1999) (describes two‑prong essence test for reviewing arbitration awards)