Wilkins Township v. Wage Policy Committee of the Wilkins Township Police Department
162 A.3d 581
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Wilkins Township police officer Jon Sherman sought permission for off-duty security work at a bar (Brewstone’s); the Board denied it as a conflict of interest.
- Sherman (through the Wage Policy Committee) grieved under the CBA and proceeded to arbitration; the Arbitrator found the denial improper and ordered the Township to make Sherman whole for lost net earnings.
- Township challenged the award, arguing the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award lost wages because Sherman did not seek that specific relief in the initial grievance and that awarding unspecified damages violated due process.
- This Court (Sherman I) held the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide the off-duty employment dispute but vacated the lost-wages portion for due process reasons and remanded for a damages hearing.
- On remand the Arbitrator held an evidentiary hearing, calculated lost wages ($25,020) for the period the ban was in effect, and issued a supplemental award; the trial court confirmed that award.
- On this appeal the Township renewed arguments that (1) awarding lost wages without having been raised in the initial grievance violated due process and (2) the Arbitrator exceeded authority by permitting damages not expressly requested; the Court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Township) | Defendant's Argument (Sherman/WPC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding lost wages when damages weren’t specified in the initial grievance violated due process | Award of unspecified lost wages deprived Township of notice and opportunity to respond | Sherman argued the CBA didn’t require specifying the relief and remand cured any procedural defect | Court held no due process violation after remand; prior opinion authorized consideration of damages and a hearing was held |
| Whether Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction/power to award lost wages because Sherman didn’t request them initially | Arbitrator exceeded authority by awarding relief outside issues raised in grievance | Arbitrator had jurisdiction over the core dispute (denial of outside employment); remedy may include damages logically related to that dispute | Court held Arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction; jurisdiction addresses issues submitted, not the form of the remedy |
| Whether Arbitrator was required by CBA/grievance rules to list specific relief sought | Township: grievance required specificity so parties could prepare | Sherman: CBA does not require specifying relief; arbitrator may fashion appropriate remedy | Court held CBA did not require specific request for relief and arbitrator has discretion to craft remedy |
| Whether prior appellate decision precluded relitigation of these issues | Township argued matters could be reconsidered | Sherman invoked law of the case/res judicata to bar relitigation | Court applied law of the case: Sherman I resolved jurisdiction and remanded for damages hearing; current appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bensalem Township v. Bensalem Township Police Benevolent Ass'n, 803 A.2d 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (arbitrator’s jurisdiction attaches to issues submitted, not to the form of the remedy)
- City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Breary), 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009) (arbitrator’s preclusion of a party’s evidence can violate due process when sanction effectively denies a party the ability to present its case)
- In re Arbitration Award Between Lower Yoder Township Police & Lower Yoder Township, 654 A.2d 651 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (arbitrators may fashion remedies reasonably related to issues placed in dispute, including forms of compensation not literally specified)
- Burke v. Pittsburgh Limestone Corp., 100 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1953) (law of the case doctrine explained; prior appellate rulings should generally be followed on later phases of the same case)