Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Teamsters Local Union No. 77
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 113
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- The Commission appeals an arbitration award denying its cross-claim for indemnification of attorney fees incurred in defending a federal challenge to fair share fee deductions.
- In 2007, non-union employees sued the Union and the Commission in federal court challenging the collection of fair share fees under the CBA.
- The Settlement Agreement (May 9, 2008) required the Union to pay plaintiffs; it did not require the Commission to pay, and it directed arbitration of the cross-claim under the CBA.
- The parties selected arbitrator John Skonier to decide the cross-claim; the Commission sought arbitration initially in 2009 but faced jurisdictional objections.
- The Arbitrator held the cross-claim was procedurally defective and did not reach the merits, concluding the demand was not timely under the CBA's grievance timeline.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the Award and remanded to construe the CBA and Settlement Agreement consistent with the parties’ intent, addressing laches and fees on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the cross-claim within the arbitrator's jurisdiction? | Commission: cross-claim is arbitrable under Settlement and CBA; | Union: arbitration preconditions not met; grievance procedure not triggered; | Yes; arbitrator had jurisdiction and the cross-claim was arbitrable. |
| Is the Award rationally derived from the CBA under the essence test? | Award should allow merits on indemnity claim; timeliness not dispositive if within essence. | Award misapplies CBA timelines; only Union time limits apply; procedurally defective. | No; theAward is not rationally derived from the CBA and fails the essence test. |
| Did the Arbitrator misinterpret Article 26 and the grievance procedure by applying a 10-day window to the Commission? | Arbitrator correctly found timeliness and arbitration within Settlement context. | 10-day window applies to Union grievances under Step 2; not applicable here. | Yes; misinterprets Article 26; inconsistent with the CBA. |
| Should the court consider laches or pre-arbitration timing in constraining the award? | Làches issue should be addressed by Arbitrator; timeliness supports arbitral jurisdiction. | Delay defeats timeliness and undermines arbitration rights. | Court remands to allow analysis consistent with laches and to consider timing on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheyney Univ. v. State College Univ. Professional Ass'n (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1999) (essence test for arbitrator review)
- City of Phila. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 720 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (arb. deference; contract interpretation)
- Delaware Cnty. v. Del. Cnty. Prison Employees Indep. Union, 552 Pa. 184 (Pa. 1998) (vacating arbitral award where contrary to plain language)
- Dep't of Corr. v. Pa. State Corr. Officers Ass'n, 38 A.3d 975 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (vacatur for improper arbitration analysis)
- Midland Borough Sch. Dist. v. Midland Educ. Ass'n (PSEA), 532 Pa. 530 (1992) (jurisdiction questions; arbitrator power)
- Pa. Turnpike Comm'n v. Teamsters Local Union No. 250, 948 A.2d 196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (timeliness and procedurals inarbitrability; deference)