PSP v. PA State Troopers Association (PSTA) (Trooper C. Acord)
518 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Trooper Craig Acord (Grievant) had a romantic relationship with Trooper Rachel Jones that ended in 2014; Jones later filed complaints and a Protection From Abuse (PFA) petition.
- A trial court entered a permanent PFA (May 10, 2016) that, among other conditions, prohibited Acord from possessing firearms until May 2018.
- PSP placed Acord on restricted duty while the PFA was in effect and later dismissed him by Notice of Disciplinary Penalty (NDP) for "Unbecoming Conduct" and "Conformance to Laws." The NDP did not cite inability to perform an essential job function as the ground for discharge.
- Acord grieved his dismissal; the parties submitted to arbitration on the limited question whether PSP had "just cause" to discharge him and, if not, the remedy.
- The arbitrator sustained the grievance, finding no just cause based primarily on prior internal investigations that had found allegations "not sustained," and ordered reinstatement to restricted duty with back pay and no loss of seniority.
- PSP appealed to Commonwealth Court, arguing the award exceeded the arbitrator's powers, violated res judicata/collateral estoppel from the PFA, and was procedurally irregular. The court affirmed the arbitrator under narrow certiorari review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PSP) | Defendant's Argument (Acord/PSTA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers by ordering reinstatement to restricted duty while PFA barred firearm possession | Reinstatement conflicts with essential trooper duties (firearm use) and CBA restricts restricted duty to specific circumstances; arbitrator exceeded authority | Arbitrator only decided whether PSP had just cause to discharge under the NDP reasons; remedy is within arbitrator's power and does not force PSP to do anything illegal | Court: No excess of power — arbitrator acted within jurisdiction to decide just cause and craft a remedy; award did not require illegal action |
| Whether PFA findings precluded re-litigation of underlying facts (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Trial-court PFA findings establish conduct equivalent to crimes/disciplinary violations; arbitrator should have given them binding effect | Arbitrator treated the fact of the PFA as binding but not the PFA court’s factual conclusions for arbitration purposes; PSP failed to show the charged CBA violations were established by the PFA | Court: Arbitrator did not err — PFA did not necessarily establish the specific offenses charged under the CBA, so PSP did not prove just cause |
| Whether there was an irregularity in the arbitration procedure (evidentiary rulings) | Arbitrator ruled prior investigations would not prove allegations untrue, but then relied on those investigations in the decision — process was unfair | Arbitrator explained prior investigations and court findings were background only and would not be binding; parties had full opportunity to present evidence | Court: No procedural irregularity — parties had notice and full opportunity; an evidentiary disagreement does not make proceedings irregular under narrow certiorari |
| Appropriate scope of judicial review of Act 111 grievance arbitration awards | N/A | N/A | Court applied narrow certiorari (limited) review: jurisdiction, regularity, excess of powers, constitutional deprivation; affirmed award under this deferential standard |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Washington v. Police Department of Washington, 259 A.2d 437 (Pa. 1969) (endorsement of certiorari review available to challenge arbitration awards)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Ass'n (Betancourt), 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (extending narrow certiorari review to police and fire grievance arbitrations)
- Bensalem Township v. Bensalem Township Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc., 803 A.2d 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (arbitrator’s jurisdiction focuses on power to decide the dispute, not on precise form of remedy)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, 938 A.2d 225 (Pa. 2007) (articulation of narrow certiorari’s four review areas)
- Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers’ Ass'n, 12 A.3d 346 (Pa. 2011) (discussing deference to arbitration balanced against avoiding unlimited arbitrator power)