Northumberland County Commissioners v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 2016, Council 86
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 199
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Union appeals a trial court order vacating arbitration awards and remanding for merits review.
- November 21, 2006 Strausser memorandum reserved her Section 1620 rights; she did not want CBA to encroach on them.
- Impassed negotiations led to binding interest arbitration; panel amended just cause and management rights provisions (Article III, Section 8; Article IV) and no party appealed.
- January 14, 2009 Strausser discharged Grievant; Union grieved; County found just cause and dismissed on March 6, 2009.
- August 24, 2010 Arbitrator Spilker held the grievance arbitrable; November 12, 2010 Arbitrability Award; November 2011 Merits Award directed reinstatement with back pay.
- December 7, 2011 County petitioned to vacate/modify; trial court vacated June 11, 2012; appellate court reversed and remanded for merits; Court reiterates essence-deferential standard and validates arbitrability under the CBA, distinguishes Westmoreland County
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grievance was arbitrable. | Union: arbitrable under CBA’s dispute provisions | County: Section 1620 rights and management rights limit arbitrability | Arbitrable under the CBA; essence test satisfied |
| Whether Section 1620 rights invalidated the just cause provision. | Union: CBA may restrict 1620 rights via agreement | County: 1620 rights cannot be curtailed | Just cause provision rationally derived from CBA; 1620 rights not violated |
| Was trial court allowed to rely on Article XXXIV, Section 3 to vacate the award? | No reversible error; waiver not required to decide arbitrability; court erred in vacating on this basis | ||
| Whether the Merits Award was rationally derived from the CBA under the essence test. | Union: award rests on CBA terms | County: court should review for irrationality | Merits Award rationally derived; affirmed under essence test (deferential review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland County v. Westmoreland County Detectives, 937 A.2d 618 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (holds limits on row officers’ 1620 rights can void awards not bargained)
- Coatesville Area Sch. Dist. v. Coatesville Area Teachers’ Ass’n / Pa. State Educ. Ass’n, 978 A.2d 413 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (essence/deferential review of arbitral awards)
- Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist. v. Marion Ctr. Area Educ. Ass’n, 982 A.2d 1041 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (essence test cannot substitute for arbitrator’s rational derivation)
- Troutman v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 735 A.2d 192 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (row officers may accept limitations on Section 1620 rights through bargaining)
- County of Lehigh v. Lehigh County Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass’n, 52 A.3d 376 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (sheriff accepted terms; County cannot attack award on 1620 grounds after bargaining)
- Rebert v. York County Detectives Ass’n, 909 A.2d 906 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (passive acceptance of 1620 limitations may validate later arbitration)
- Cheyney University v. State College Univ. Prof’l Ass’n (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1999) (articulates deferential essence standard for Act 195 review)