SD of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth Association of School Administrators, Teamsters Local 502
SD of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth Association of School Administrators, Teamsters Local 502 - 152 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Association appeals trial court’s vacation of arbitration award after Burns’ termination for alleged PSSA cheating while principal at Tilden.
- Arbitrator found Burns did not actively participate in cheating but negligently supervised testing and PSSA security.
- Arbitrator mitigated termination to a 60-day suspension without pay and ordered Burns reinstated to principal position when practicable.
- District sought to vacate Award; trial court vacated, concluding Award was not rationally derived from the CBA and violated public policy.
- On appeal, Commonwealth Court reversed, holding arbitrator could modify discipline absent express CBA limitation and that public policy did not require vacatur.
- Court emphasized essence test: arbitrator’s award must draw its essence from the CBA and public policy exception is narrow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in vacating the Award under the essence test. | Burns’ termination for neglect of supervisory duties exceeded the arbitrator’s authority. | Arbitrator’s modification of discipline must flow from the CBA and was improper. | No; award rationally derives from the CBA; trial court erred. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying discipline under the CBA. | CBA reserves sole disciplinary discretion to District; modification violates the contract. | Arbitrator may modify discipline when no explicit limits exist in the CBA and just cause found. | No; arbitrator’s modification was within authority as derived from the CBA. |
| Whether reinstating Burns violates public policy. | Reinstatement after involvement in cheating or even severe negligence undermines public duty to protect testing integrity. | Negligence without active cheating does not violate well-defined public policy; reinstatement permissible. | No; public policy exception not violated given lack of active cheating and narrow public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of the Attorney General v. Council 13, AFL-CIO, 844 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 2004) (essence test; arbitral deference; contract interpretation)
- Bethel Park Sch. Dist. v. Bethel Park Fed’n of Teachers, Local 1607, 55 A.3d 154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (essence test; arbitrator may modify discipline absent express limits)
- Rose Tree Media Secretaries & Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 136 A.3d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (two-prong essence test; arbitrator’s authority to modify discipline)
- Abington Sch. Dist. v. Abington Sch. Serv. Pers. Ass’n/AFSCME, 744 A.2d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (arbitrator’s authority; district’s reserved discipline powers)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (public policy exception; narrow and well-defined policy)