Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'n
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 221
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Sherie Vrable, a 23‑year employee working one‑on‑one with emotionally disturbed elementary students, was found unconscious at school after wearing a 100 microgram fentanyl patch not prescribed to her. Possession of fentanyl without a prescription is a misdemeanor under state law.
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit discharged Vrable for possession/use of a controlled substance at work; the Union grieved under the CBA’s "just cause" discipline provision.
- An arbitrator reinstated Vrable without back pay but imposed strict conditions: drug/alcohol treatment, abstinence while on duty, unannounced testing, counseling, monitoring, and immediate dismissal for any violation (a "last chance" arrangement).
- The trial court vacated the arbitration award; this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued conflicting rulings, leading to multiple remands and application of evolving standards (essence test, core functions, public policy exception).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Philadelphia Housing (regarding reinstatement after egregious sexual harassment) prompted reconsideration; on remand this Court held the arbitrator’s conditional reinstatement violated a well‑defined, dominant public policy protecting children from illegal drugs and vacated the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstating an employee who used an illicit drug at work violates public policy protecting children from drug exposure | Vrable: Arbitrator’s conditional reinstatement protects children via strict safeguards and does not offend public policy | Employer: Reinstatement, even with conditions, places drug‑using employee back into classroom and undermines protection of students | Held: Reinstatement violated a well‑defined, dominant public policy and the award was vacated |
| Whether the arbitrator’s award is enforceable under the "essence test" despite public policy concerns | Vrable: Award was rationally derived from the CBA and therefore valid unless it contravenes a dominant public policy | Employer: Public policy exception applies because safety of students is core and dominant; arbitration cannot eviscerate that policy | Held: Public policy exception applied; safety of students from drugs is dominant and the award conflicted with it |
| Whether Philadelphia Housing alters the analysis | Vrable: Philadelphia Housing is distinguishable because that case involved repeated, egregious sexual harassment and reinstatement without sanctions | Employer: Philadelphia Housing reinforces that reinstatement undermining dominant policy cannot stand | Held: Court applied Philadelphia Housing and concluded that reinstatement here likewise undermined the dominant public policy protecting children from drugs |
| Whether conditional measures (testing, treatment, monitoring) were sufficient to protect public policy | Vrable: Conditions gave employer oversight and immediate dismissal for violations, thereby protecting students | Employer: Conditions insufficient because returning a recovering user to supervise children is contrary to public safety and policy | Held: Conditions insufficient in Court’s view; allowing reinstatement pending recovery "eviscerated" employer’s ability to enforce public policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 52 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2012) (arbitration reinstatement that undermines dominant public policy against workplace sexual harassment may be vacated)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Personnel Ass'n, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (describing the essence test and narrow public policy exception to enforcement of arbitration awards)
- Shamokin Area School Dist. v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees Dist. Council 86, 20 A.3d 579 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (examining when reinstatement violates public policy)
- United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (courts must accept arbitrator's factual findings when rationally derived from the agreement)