Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania v. Ass'n of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculty
71 A.3d 353
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Slippery Rock University (PASSHE) petitions for review of a 2012 arbitration award that reinstated Grievant, Robert Ammon Jr., as a full professor and department chair with back pay and purged termination references, after the arbitrator found no just cause on procedural grounds.
- Grievant, a tenured professor and director of Sports Management, led a Spain trip in March 2010 where students alleged unprofessional and sexual remarks; Grievant admitted making some remarks but attributed them to intoxication.
- Grievant self-reported the misconduct to the Dean on April 7, 2010; Dean Strickland conducted an interview and investigation; Provost Williams notified Grievant of a formal investigation and required attendance at an investigatory interview and later a pre-disciplinary conference.
- The University terminated Grievant on July 9, 2010 for unprofessional conduct with students, citing a second offense and prior disciplinary history; the Union grieved under Articles 15 and 43 of the CBA, with arbitration yielding a reinstatement award (April 11, 2012).
- The arbitrator found a pattern of procedural irregularities, notably a failure to issue a formal complaint under Article 43, and ordered reinstatement despite evidence of serious sexual remarks toward students.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the award, holding the arbitrator erred in applying Article 43, concluding the award was not rationally derived from the CBA and violated public policy (Title IX) by reinstating a person in a position of trust after sexual misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the arbitrator’s award draw essence from the CBA? | Ammon argues arbitrator added to the CBA and erred in essence. | University argues arbitrator relied on procedural grounds not in the CBA. | Yes; award not rationally derived from the CBA. |
| Was there a required complaint under Article 43 before discipline? | Grievant self-reported; verbal notices sufficed under Article 43. | Arbitrator found no complaint; process flawed under Article 43. | No; arbitrator’s conclusion not rationally derived; notices satisfied Article 43. |
| Does reinstating Grievant violate public policy (Title IX)? | Public policy concerns focused on process, not outcome. | Reinstatement would undermine discipline and policy against sexual discrimination. | Yes; reinstatement violates Title IX public policy and is unenforceable. |
| Is the award permissible given Grievant’s prior misconduct and the evidence of sexual remarks toward students? | Grievant admitted improper statements; previous reprimand shows pattern necessitating discipline. | Award correctly focused on due process; past conduct does not nullify just cause here. | No; public policy and essence analysis trump the arbitrator’s reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- State System of Higher Education (Cheyney University) v. State College University Professional Association (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 (1999) (essence test; arbitration review limited to derivation from CBA or public policy)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA-NEA, 595 Pa. 648 (2007) (public policy exception to the essence test)
- Pleasant Valley School District v. Robert D. Schaeffer, 31 A.3d 1241 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (essence test articulation and justification)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (three-step public policy analysis for essence exception)
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County And Municipal Employees, 956 A.2d 477 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (arbitration award violating Title VII public policy cannot be enforced)