Rose Tree Media Secretaries & Educational Support Personnel Association - ESPA, PSEA-NEA v. Rose Tree Media SD
136 A.3d 1069
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- S.M. (Grievant) was a one-on-one special education aide for Rose Tree Media School District since 2002; she worked with a student with Down’s syndrome and had no district training for that disability.
- On Nov. 18, 2011, after the student refused to enter class and lay prone in the hallway, Grievant took his hand, coaxed him, and pulled him to his desk; employer characterized this as dragging the student ~20 feet.
- School staff (teacher, reading interventionist) did not intervene; the principal spoke to Grievant, returned the student to her care for the day, and believed no harm was done.
- Employer placed Grievant on unpaid leave, recommended discharge, and the Board terminated her; the union filed a grievance under the CBA and the matter proceeded to arbitration.
- The arbitrator found no just cause for discharge, credited Grievant’s account (no injury, no malicious intent), converted discharge to a five‑day suspension, ordered reinstatement with back pay and expungement of discharge, and expressly found no violation of school law.
- The trial court refused employer’s request to include the arbitration transcript in the record, upheld the award under the PERA “essence” standard, and rejected employer’s public‑policy challenge; employer appealed to Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Employer's Argument | Association's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have included the arbitration hearing transcript in the appellate record when employer raised a public‑policy challenge | Trial court must review arbitrator’s factual record de novo under the public‑policy exception; transcript needed to assess risk to student safety | Reviewing courts must not relitigate facts; only the award and legal authorities are required for public‑policy review | Trial court did not err: transcript not required; appellate review is limited to the award and legal authority unless a specified need for additional factual material is shown |
| Whether the arbitrator’s award fails the PERA “essence” test (i.e., is without foundation in the CBA) | Award is untethered to CBA and improperly substitutes arbitrator’s judgment for employer’s disciplinary authority | Arbitrator acted within broad just‑cause and remedial authority in the CBA and rationally derived the remedy from the contract | Award satisfied the essence test: arbitrator had jurisdiction and the remedy rationally flowed from the CBA |
| Whether the reinstatement violates a well‑defined, dominant public policy protecting students from violence and abuse | Reinstating without a remediation plan or significant discipline undermines student‑safety policy; employer argued the award poses an unacceptable risk | Arbitrator found no injury, no malicious intent, and that short suspension would remediate conduct; remedy consistent with CBA and not violative of public policy | No public‑policy violation: arbitrator’s factual findings (no harm, remorse, low risk of repetition) meant the award did not contravene dominant school‑safety policy |
| Whether the arbitrator improperly relied on bystanders’ reactions (or lack thereof) rather than the misconduct itself | Arbitrator impermissibly used lack of crying/intervention to minimize misconduct; student need not be injured for policy to apply | Crediting witness credibility and circumstances is within arbitrator’s province; award focused on remedial outcome rather than excusing behavior | Court upheld arbitrator’s credibility determinations and remedial discretion; factual credibility is not reviewable under the essence test |
Key Cases Cited
- Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am. Fed. of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emp., Dist. Council 33, Local 934, 52 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2012) (explains deference to arbitration awards under PERA and scope of public‑policy exception)
- Pa. Turnpike Comm’n v. Teamsters Local Union No. 77, 87 A.3d 904 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (application of PERA/essence standard in public‑employer arbitration review)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (clarifies narrowness of essence test and limits on factual review)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (articulates three‑step public‑policy analysis for arbitration awards)
- Shamokin Area Sch. Dist. v. Am. Fed. of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emp., Dist. Council 86, 20 A.3d 579 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (recognizes public policy protecting students from violence on school property)
- Bethel Park Sch. Dist. v. Bethel Park Fed’n of Teachers, Local 1607, 55 A.3d 154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (arbitrator’s reinstatement can violate public policy where employee engaged in repeated or egregious misconduct)
- Office of the Att’y Gen. v. Council 13, Am. Fed. of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emp., AFL‑CIO, 844 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 2004) (arbitrator’s authority to determine just cause and modify discipline under contract)
- Abington Sch. Dist. v. Abington Sch. Serv. Personnel Ass’n, 744 A.2d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (arbitrator’s remedial authority under CBA)
- Greater Latrobe Area Sch. Dist. v. Pa. State Educ. Ass’n, 615 A.2d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (arbitrator discretion to fashion remedies to effectuate CBA)