Thе Borough of California (Borough) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County (trial court) which reversed the Borough Council’s decisiоn to deny Chief of Police Nelson Horner’s claim that certain fringe benefits, including personal days, vacation days and holidays,
While in the course of his employment as the Chief of Police for the Borough, Horner sustained injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident on October 17, 1992. Since that date, Horner has been receiving Worker’s Compensation benefits, and the Borough has been paying Horner the difference between the Worker’s Compensation benefits and his regular base pay pursuant to the Act.
Horner made a claim to the Borough Council, contending that the Borough should have compensated him for his fringe benefits that he would have received had he been working because these benefits are included in his “salary” under the Act. Specifiсally, Horner claimed for 1993, compensation for two personal days and ten paid holidays,
Horner then appеaled to the trial court, which reversed the Borough Council. The trial court stated that to find otherwise would thwart the important public purpose of the Heart and Lung Act, which “is to prevent an injured officer from suffering loss of rank, standing, salary or benefits while he or she is prevented from working due to a work-related injury.” Horner v. Borough of California, (No. 94-6710, filed April 1,1996), slip op. at 5. The trial court then remanded the matter to the Borough Council for a determination of the actual number of personal, vacation and holidays due to Homer. This appeal followed.
The Borough contends that since the collective bargaining agreement makes it clear that vacation pаy is not appropriate unless the employee actually works, Homer is not entitled to such pay while he is disabled. In Schmidt v. Borough of Stroudsburg,
Holding that overtime wages should not be included, the court recognized that it had not previously defined “salary” for purposes of the Heart and Lung Act. Id. Therefore, as guidance the court looked to its definition of “salary” as it relates to the calculation of retirement benefits under the Act of May 29, 1956, P.L. 1804, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 767-778, which authorizes municipalities to create police pension funds. In distinguishing “salary” from the more general term “pay,” we stated that:
“Salary” ... has a more restricted, specific meaning than “pay” as a catеgory of compensation. “Salary” is a special type of compensation, where a fixed, stated amount is paid, periodically as by the year, quаrter, month, week, or other fixed period.... While “salary” denotes a fixed amount of compensation periodically paid without regard to hours actually worked, overtime compensation varies according to the amount of extra work performed, [citations omitted]. Rather than being regular, periodic, fixed compensation, overtime earnings are customarily irregularly paid in varying amounts depending upon when,*1362 and to what extent, the additional work is actually performed, [citations omitted].
Id. at 209-10 [quoting Borough of Beaver v. Liston, 76 Pa.Cmwlth. 619,
We conclude that the above analysis applies with equal force to vacation pay. Under the terms of the agreement, an officer is entitled to a fixed annual salary in exchange for working a fixed number of days for a fixed numbеr of hours per day. The balance of the officer’s time is free to be used as he or she chooses. The agreement further provides for a fixed amount of compensation per hour or per day if the officer elects, or the department requires,
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 1997, the оrder of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County dated April 1, 1996, is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the court of common pleas for the entry of an ordеr reinstating the decision of the Borough Council.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Notes
.Although Homer is not covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the police union and the Borough, he is entitled to the benefits under the agreement pursuant to the "Chief's Act,” which requires that the Chief of Police in political subdivisions receives no less than the sаme pay and fringe benefits as received by the highest ranking police officer in the bargaining unit. Act of December 18, 1984, P.L. 1004, § 1, 43 P.S. § 218.
Although the trial court did not address whether Homer wаs entitled to compensation for unused sick leave, the Borough Council, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the parties, in their briefs, indicated that the accumulation of sick leave was also at issue. However, at oral argument, counsel for the Borough waived this issue. Therefore, we will not address it.
. Act of June 28, 1935, P.L. 477, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 637-638.
. The parties stipulated to one exception when benefits were not paid: For three weeks in March 1994, Homer attempted to return to work on a light duty basis.
. All fringe benefits were рaid to Homer through 1992, and Homer received his five weeks paid vacation for 1993.
. There is an inconsistency regarding the number of personal days that Homer is clаiming for 1994. The Borough Council made a finding that Homer is claiming only two personal days for 1994 based on the collective bargaining agreement. However, the trial court found that Homer was claiming three personal days as it appears in the Notes of Testimony before the Borough Council on pages 9 and 10.
.Where, as herе, a complete record was developed before the local agency decision, our scope of review is whether the Borough Council viоlated constitutional rights, committed an error of law or whether necessary findings of facts were unsupported by substantial evidence. Appeal of Suspension of McClellan,
. Officers, for instance, are required to work • certain holidays on a rotating basis.