SCRANTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 1147, AFT v. SCRANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
444 A.2d 1144
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April 19, 1982
498 Pa. 58
Edwin A. Abrahamsen, Scranton, for appellee.
Before O‘BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, MCDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ.
OPINION
LARSEN, Justice.
This protracted litigation began during the 1974-75 school year when the Scranton Federation of Teachers (the Federa-
The strike was terminated when the judge/arbitrators issued an award in March, 1975 resolving the various disputed issues, which award included a “make-up time” provision extending the scheduled closing date of June 13, 1975 to June 27, 1975. On May 30, 1975, the district issued a staff bulletin to the teachers which outlined closing procedures to be followed on the last few days of the school year. The teachers complied but, through the Federation, filed a grievance against the District asserting it had unilaterally altered past practice and policy regarding closing procedures (i.e., grade rendering, housekeeping and report card distribution) in derogation of Article 3 of the collectivе bargaining agreement which provided:
The Board, Federation and their respective representatives shall take no action violative of or inconsistent with any provision of this Agreement or any policy or practice affecting working conditions of teachers existing on the date of the execution of this Agreement or renewals thereof without prior negotiation and agreement with the Federation.
Any complaint arising hereunder shall be presented by only the Federation in accordance with Step 14 of the Grievance Procedure.
A hearing was held on November 10, 1975 before arbitrator Morrison Handsaker of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrator Handsaker held that the District had, indeed, violated Article 3 of the collective bargaining agreement by unilaterally modifying a practice (the closing procedures) which had existed at the time the agreement was executed. The arbitrator did not, however, award a remedy
Representatives of the Fedеration met on January 28, 1976 with the District‘s Superintendent of Schools, Dr. John F. Stephens, to discuss possible remedies. However, on February 10, 1976, Dr. Stephens advised the Federation that the District “deemed the matter closed“, brief for appellee at 11, and broke off negotiations. The Federation immediately filed another grievance protesting the District‘s refusal to remedy its violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
A hearing was held before a second arbitrator, J. Joseph Loеwenberg, on July 26, 1976. The issues then submitted were (1) is the grievance arbitrable? and (2) if so, what should the appropriate remedy be, if any?
On the matter of arbitrability, the District took the position that the Federation had had an opportunity at the first arbitration proceeding to request a remedy and that, by failing to do so, the Federation should be precluded from raising this issue at a later time. Essentially, the District‘s position was (and is) that a grievance arbitration cannot be bifurcated into a breach of bargaining agreement proceeding and a remedy proceeding.
Arbitrator Loewenberg rejected this contention and ruled that, as the matter of the remedy was not part of the stipulated issue at the first arbitration, the Federation was not having a “second bite at the apple.” Moreover, the arbitrator held the District‘s failure to reach a remedy was a
Elementary school teachers who were required to remain until 3 p. m. on June 27, 1975 shall be compensated for 5½ hours at their hourly rate in effect on that date. Secondary school teachers required to be on duty until 3 p. m. on June 27, 1975 shall be compensated for 4 hours at their hourly rate in effect on that date.
The District appealed this award to the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County.2 That court reversed and vacated the award, holding that it constituted additional compensation in violation of section 1006 of the PERA,
The Federation appealed that decision to the Commonwealth Court which, on July 20, 1979, affirmed on other
We granted the Federation‘s petition for allowance of appeal. This case is, as appellant puts it, a “remarkable piece of litigation.” It is remarkable because of the extent to which both the Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court have exceeded the permissible bounds of judicial review of an arbitrator‘s award in derogation of the PERA, the Arbitration Act of 1927,
In labor disputes resolved by arbitration machinery, the less judicial participation the better. Community College of Beaver County v. Society of the Faculty, supra, 473 Pa. at 586 n.6, 375 A.2d at 1272 n.6. Accordingly, the oft-repeated “essence” test was adopted by this Court in 1977, id. 473 Pa. at 593-94, 375 A.2d at 1275:
To state the matter more precisely, where a task of an arbitrator, PERA or otherwise, has been to determine the
intention of the contracting parties as evidenced by their collective bargaining agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution, then the arbitrator‘s award is based on a resolution of a question of fаct and is to be respected by the judiciary if “the interpretation can in any rational way be derived from the agreement, viewed in light of its language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties’ intention ...” Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 405 F.2d 1123, 1128 (3d Cir. 1969). It was this approach which was meant to be suggested by the brief statement in International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers [v. School District of Philadelphia], quoted supra, that “the arbitrator‘s interpretation must be upheld if it is a reasonable one.” 465 Pa. [356] at 366, 350 A.2d [804] at 809.5
The рarties to this collective bargaining agreement had bargained for the arbitrator‘s construction, not the court‘s; thus a court has no business intruding into the domain of the arbitrator because its interpretation of the agreement differs from his. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). It is clear that the broad judicial deference given arbitrators’ decisions applies with equal force to determinations regarding the arbitrability of the subject matter of a grievance. In County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, 476 Pa. 27, 31-32, 381 A.2d 849, 851 (1977), we noted:
Pennsylvania labor policy not only favors but requires the submission to arbitration of public employee grievances
“arising out of the interpretation of the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement“. See also Lincoln System of Education v. Lincoln Association of University Professors, 467 Pa. 112, 354 A.2d 576 (1976). From this policy is derived the corollary principle that where, as here, an arbitrator has interpreted a collective bargaining аgreement in favor of the arbitrability of the grievance before him, a reviewing court should be slow indeed to disagree. As the Supreme Court of the United States observed in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, 363 U.S. 574, 584-85, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1354, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960): “In the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail, particularly where, as here, the exclusion clause is vague and the arbitrаtion clause quite broad.”
See Ringgold Area School District v. Ringgold Education Association, PSEA/NEA, 498 Pa. 380, 414 A.2d 118 (1980) (quoting Allegheny County Prison Employees, supra,) and Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 85, 492 Pa. 494, 424 A.2d 1299 (1981).
Given the restrictive scope of judicial review, it is difficult to understand the Commonwealth Court‘s decision in this case predicated solely on its notion that the parties to and arbitrator of a labor dispute cannot bifurcate a grievance proceeding. There is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement, the PERA, the Arbitration Act of 1927, or decisiоnal law that prohibits the procedure followed by the arbitrators in this case.
We do not approve of bifurcated proceedings as a general practice in settling disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements. The policy of the statute is better served if a single arbitrator is permitted to dispose of all disputed matters arising under a collective bargaining agreement, including the question of remedies for violations of the agreement, in a single arbitration proceeding. (See
The Commonwealth Court dеcision negates, without rationale, the presumption of arbitrability of a labor grievance, Ringgold Area School District v. Ringgold Education Association, PSEA/NEA, supra, 498 Pa. at 384, 414 A.2d at 120, and ignores this Court‘s instructions that an arbitrator‘s determination as to procedural matters is to be given at least as much freedom from judicial interference as decisions on substantive matters. School District of Duquesne v. Duquesne Education Association, 475 Pa. 279, 380 A.2d 353 (1977) (procedural questions which grow out of dispute should be left to the аrbitrator).
Accordingly, as neither case law nor statutory law prohibit bifurcated proceedings, and as the ruling of arbitrator Loewenberg derived its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, the Commonwealth Court erred in holding otherwise.
Appellee raises several other overlapping reasons for affirming the Commonwealth Court. These “several” reasons are couched in different legal terms but all raise basically the same contention.6 That contention is thаt if the Federation was aggrieved by the first arbitrator‘s deci-
Finally, appellee asserts, as did the Court of Common Pleas, that the arbitrator‘s award violated section 1006 of the PERA,
For the foregоing reasons, the order of the Commonwealth Court is vacated and the award of Arbitrator Loewenberg is reinstated.
ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
NIX, Justice, concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, it is inappropriate and contrary to existing precedent to address the merits of the issue of whether the arbitrator‘s award violated section 1006 of PERA,
The fact that [an] arbitrator in analyzing [a] dispute may have failed to properly perceive the question presented or erroneously resolved it, does not provide justification for judicial interference. Our inquiry ends once it is determined that the issue properly defined is within the terms of the agreement. Id., 492 Pa. at 521, 424 A.2d at 1313.
Absent a showing of fraud in the decision making process, the arbitrator‘s award should not be disturbed. Assoc. of Pa. State Colleges and Univ. Faculties v. Commonwealth, 496 Pa. 239, 436 A.2d 987 (1981) (Nix, J. concurring). “Any attempt to interpret the ‘essence test’ as a device to expand judicial review in this area . . . undermines the underlying purposes sought to be obtained through arbitration.” Id.
MCDERMOTT, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion.
I think we are rather breathing too heavy to lift a feather. This case should be confined to its own procedural anomaly.
A controversy arose, it was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator gave judgment, but misapprehending his function, refused to fashion a remedy. To do one and not the other, creates a vacuum soon filled with original acrimonies. An arbitrator, invested with the authorities delineated in the majority opinion, is to judge and resolve the controversy. To leave the parties to fashion their own remedy is to
ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. The issue presented is not whether a bifurcated arbitration of a single grievance is permissible but rather whether appellants should have been permitted a second, separate arbitration of a second, separate “grievance” arising not from “the work situation” but from appellants’ dissatisfaction with the original arbitrator‘s decision. As the second arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to consider appellants’ new claim, the order of the Commonwealth Court should be affirmed.
Section 903 of the Public Employee Relations Act provides:
“Arbitration of disputes or grievances arising out of the interpretation of the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement is mandatory. The proсedure to be adopted is a proper subject of bargaining with the proviso that the final step shall provide for a binding decision by an
arbitrator or a tri-partite board of arbitrators as the parties may agree. . . .”
Rather than appeal the arbitrator‘s decision as to the scope of his powers to the court of common pleas, appellants followed the arbitrator‘s gratuitous suggestion and attempted to negotiate a remedy with appellee school district. By February 10, 1976, well within the thirty-day period permitted for an appeal from an arbitrator‘s decision, appellees were aware that the school district “considered the matter closed” and that further negotiation would be fruitless. However, instead of filing an appeal, appellees filed a new “grievance” with a second arbitrator, seeking the remedy which the first arbitrator had found himself powerlеss to award.
Contrary to the second arbitrator‘s erroneous finding, this second “grievance” was not properly arbitrable. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties, in relevant part, defined arbitrable issues as “complaint[s] involving the work situation.” The issue before the second arbitrator was not a “complaint involving the work situation“: that complaint had already been the subject of a binding decision by the first arbitrator. Rather, this second “grievance” was nothing more than a complaint involving the first arbitrator‘s decision as to the scope of his authority. The threshold issue was not whether a remedy should have been granted, but whether the first arbitrator misperceived the scope of his powers. Manifestly, such an issue relates only to the arbitration procedure itself and is not a proper issue for a
In another case involving the same parties, the same school year, and the same issue of successive, separate arbitrations, the Commonwealth Court vacated the second arbitrator‘s award of back pay, stating:
“In local public employment disputes, the courts of common pleas have exclusive jurisdiction to review an arbitrator‘s award. Pa.R.C.P. No. 247. The Federation failed to follow the appropriate appellate procedure when the first arbitration did not award backpay, i.e. appeal.”
Scranton School District v. Scranton Federation of Teachers, 43 Pa.Cmwlth. 102, 106, 402 A.2d 1091, 1093 (1979) (allocatur denied). So too here, where appellants chose to invent a second “grievance” and seek a second аrbitration rather than follow the appropriate appellate procedure, the Commonwealth Court properly vacated the second arbitrator‘s award. Its order should be affirmed.