Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Teamsters Local Union No. 77
87 A.3d 904
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission petitions for review of an arbitration award finding subcontracting grass cutting at Trevose violated the CBA.
- CBA grants management rights to the Commission, with specific subcontracting limits in Article 17, Section 3 and general “management rights” in Article 2.
- In 2012 the Commission began subcontracting mowing of off-Turnpike properties at Trevose due to workload and safety priorities, contesting whether this violated the CBA.
- Union grievance filed July 31, 2012; the Commission admitted subcontracting but argued it did not breach the CBA; arbitration ensued.
- Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance and ordered cease-and-desist of subcontracting and back-pay to the Union for hours subcontracted.
- The Commission challenged the award under the essence test and public policy, leading to partial affirmance and partial vacatur by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Award derives its essence from the CBA. | Union emphasizes subcontracting violated Article 17, Section 3 and that the unit had manpower to do the work. | Commission argues management rights permit subcontracting under Article 17, Section 3 and Section 2, and that the Award flows from the CBA. | Award sustained; it draws its essence from the CBA. |
| Whether the Award violates public policy under PERA and Turnpike law. | Award furthers public safety by preserving roadway maintenance and adheres to PERA limits. | Cease-and-desist improperly encroaches on essential governmental functions and public policy. | Cease-and-desist portion affirmed; public policy concerns do not require vacatur of that part. |
| Whether the monetary portion constitutes punitive damages against a public entity. | Monetary remedy mirrors Local 250 and compensates for subcontracting breach. | Punitive damages against a Commonwealth agency are impermissible under controlling precedent. | Monetary portion vacated as punitive damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slippery Rock Univ. of Pennsylvania v. Ass’n of Pennsylvania State Coll. & Univ. Faculty, 71 A.3d 353 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (essence test framework for arbitration awards)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (three-step public policy analysis in essence-test context)
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Dist. Council 47, Local 2187, 945 A.2d 796 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (limits punitive damages in arbitrations involving public entities)
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Dist. Council 33, Local 934, 617 Pa. 69 (Pa. 2012) (public policy considerations in essence-test review (SUPREME Court authority cited))
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (public policy exception to essence test recognized)
- Coatesville Area Sch. Dist. v. Coatesville Area Teachers’ Ass’n/Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass’n, 978 A.2d 413 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (quando non negotiatus: public employer’s obligation under PERA when choosing to bargain)
- Phila. Housing Auth. v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., Dist. Council 47, Local 934, 52 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2012) (Supreme Court discussion of public policy in essence-test)
- Cheyney Univ. v. State College Univ. Prof'l Ass’n (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1999) (definitive articulation of essence/public policy boundary)