Opinion by
Petitioners appeal an order of the Board of Claims (Board) which denied petitioners ’ сlaim against their employer, the Department of Transportation (DOT), for the value of work tools stolen from a DOT garage. We affirm..
Petitioners are mechanics for DOT and are stationеd at the Christy Park garage, McKeesport, Pennsylvania.
Petitiоners filed a letter with the Board of Claims seeking compensation from DOT for the stolen tools, аnd on July 17, 1979, the Board dismissed the claim without a hearing. The matter was appealed to this Court and rеmanded to the Board for a hearing.
■The Commonwealth Court’s scope of review in such matters is limited; we must affirm the order of the Board unless we find that it is not in accordance with law or that thеre is not substantial evidence to support the findings of fact. State Highway and Bridge Authority v. E. J. Albrecht Co.,
Three of the petitioners, Biggs, Kubinsky and O’Connor, were included in a collective bargaining agreement entered into between DOT and Council 13 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, under which all disрutes arising from the terms and conditions of their employment were to be submitted to a grievance procedure. Initially, the petitioners followed this procedure and submitted their claim for сompensation to binding arbitration.
Petitioners do not now question the validity of the arbitrator’s decision as to their rights under the collective bargaining agreement.
To constitute bailment, there must be a delivery of personal property to another, who accepts possession of the property, and exercises custody and contrоl over it. Sparrow v. Airport Parking Co. of America,
Evidence produced at the hearing before the Board indicated that DOT neither required nor encouraged its employees to leave their tools in the garage. Further, DOT did nothing to prоvide for this practice; the employees furnished their own cabinets and locks. No evidenсe suggested that DOT accepted or exercised custody or control over the tools; on the contrary, the existence of the locked cabinets suggests that DOT would have been prevented from doing so. On the basis of such evidence, the Board was correct in concluding thаt there was no implied contract of bailment between DOT and the petitioners. The order of the Board of Claims is affirmed.
Order,
Now, August 9, 1983, the order of the Board of Claims in the above mentioned mattеr, dated April 22, 1982, is hereby affirmed.
Notes
Petitioners are Raymond Riggs, Jr., Patrick H. O’Oonnor, John Kubinsky, and J. A. Hayes.
Riggs v. Department of Transportation,
As mandated by Section 903 of the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §1101.903.
Although the Board based iibs decision on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement itself, we note that the Board had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the arbitrator. Section 763(b) of the Judicial Code states, in pertinent рant:
(b) Awards of Arbitrators. — The Commonwealth Court ■shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all petitions for review of an award of arbitrators appointed in conformity with statute to arbitrate a dispute between the Commonwealth and an employee of the Commonwealth.
42 P.C.S. §763(to).
Petitioners have not requested that this Court review the decision of the arbitrator.
Hayes was a supervisor reрresented by Council 13 pursuant to a separate “memorandum of understanding.” He was not required, nоr did he submit a claim to arbitration. Although the Board of Claims had jurisdiction to consider Hayes’ express contractual rights under the memorandum, this document was not produced or made part of the record, and Hayes limited his claim to one of implied bailment.