Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education v. Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties
98 A.3d 5
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- This case involves the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (State System) and the Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties (Union) challenging an arbitration award. The dispute centers on whether librarians can be assigned academic advising duties, which the Union argued violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA covers all State System universities and delineates duties for teaching faculty and library faculty with distinct workloads. The Arbitrator found that librarians could not be assigned advising duties as it violated the CBA and directed the University to cease such assignments. The University appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing misapplication of past practices, improper expansion of CBA terms, and violation of public policy. The court applies a narrow essence-of-the-CBA review and affirms the Arbitrator’s award.
- The arbitration record showed: (a) Article 4 defines teaching faculty duties, including advising students; (b) Article 23 governs library faculty workload (35-hour week) and library needs; (c) Article 16 and Article 12 address evaluations and responsibilities outside classroom duties; (d) the University closed its advising center in 2010 and began assigning advising duties to librarians in 2011; (e) librarians’ job descriptions were amended to include advising without prior bargaining; (f) the Arbitrator relied on CBA language and the parties’ past practices to conclude librarians cannot provide advising.
- The University argued the Arbitration Award violated managerial prerogatives under Article 10 and PERA §702 by relying on past practices and inserting new terms; it also argued the award violates public policy by restricting managerial discretion.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Award, holding it rationally derived from the CBA, not in violation of public policy, and permissible under the essence test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s reliance on past practice was permissible. | University argues past practices justify rejecting CBA language. | Union contends past practice clarifies the contract but cannot override clear CBA terms. | Yes; past practice properly supported the arbitrator’s construction of the CBA. |
| Whether the arbitrator added or rewrote the CBA by requiring ‘teaching faculty’ to advise. | University asserts the arbitrator rewrote Article 4 to restrict librarians. | Union contends the arbitrator interpreted, not rewrote, the CBA. | No; interpretation supported by Articles 4, 12 and 23; no improper addition. |
| Whether the award violates public policy regarding managerial prerogatives under PERA §702. | University claims inherent managerial prerogatives were violated. | Union argues public policy does not bar the award when CBA governs terms. | No; absence of contrary legislation and adherence to CBA controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coatesville Area School District v. Coatesville Area Teachers’ Association/PSEA, 978 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (essence-of-the-CBA review; arbitrator’s interpretation must flow from contract)
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Teamsters Local Union No. 77, 87 A.3d 904 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (public policy on inherent managerial prerogatives; PERA interaction)
- Danville Area School District v. Danville Area Education Association, PSEA/NEA, 754 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (past practice usage to interpret contract language)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (public policy and essence-test considerations)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (public policy and managerial prerogatives assessment)
- Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, 38 A.3d 975 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (limits on past-practice and essence-test application)