*1 Dеfender, Defender’s Karl, Public Chief Public James J. Office, Hill. for John Edward Dis- Moyer, E. Atty., Dist. Susan Madenspacher,
James C. Office, for Com. Attorney’s trict C.J., ZAPPALA, CAPPY, FLAHERTY, Before SAYLOR, NIGRO, JJ. CASTILLE, NEWMAN ORDER PER CURIAM: grant- improvidently appeal having been dismissed
ed. SUGARLOAF, Appellee,
TOWNSHIP OF Anthony BOWLING, Appellant. R. Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court Argued 1999. Oct. Oct.
Decided *2 Lightman, M. Gary for Harrisburg, Anthony Bowling. R. Schneider, Hazleton, James A. Tp. Sugarloaf. ZAPPALA, CAPPY, FLAHERTY, C.J., and Before SAYLOR, CASTILLE, NIGRO, JJ. NEWMAN OPINION CAPPY, Justice. whether in order to determine granted this matter
We jurisdictiоn has the initial arbitrator the trial court brought by police arbitraribility grievance of a determine particular the issue We now hold officer. 1111 is an issue which to Act pursuant matter is arbitrable and that it error must be submitted first first to the trial court. We bring Court’s vacatur affirm the Commonwealth therefore order, grounds. on albeit different trial court’s (“Officer 1, 1995, Bowling”) R. July Anthony On (“Township”) as Sugarloаf was hired contract officer. No formal probationary police part-time, *3 Township; by Bowling Officer and the hire was entered into regarding understanding mutual apparently no there was also Bowling’s August On probationary period. term of Officer the Bowling Office 14, 1996, thirteen months after approximately hired, communicated that intended Township the was first ostensibly Bowling’s probationary period, to extend Officer to additional time review giving Township purpose On performance. work December Bowling’s Officer his Bowling that Township informed Officer hire Township would not had terminated and that the period police him as a full-time officer. 6, 1996, Bowling the Town- December Officer informed
On his to arbitration over termi- ship proceеd that he desired to arbitration. The The Township proceed nation. refused not Bowling was took the that Officer Township position he, a proba- as to have his arbitrated since grievance entitled officer, bargaining the collective tionary by was not covered agreement. amended, 24, 1968, §§ P.S. 217.1-217.10. June P.L.
1. Act of only. firefighting personnel applies to and Aсt 111 Undaunted, Bowling requested Officer the American (“AAA”) Arbitration Association appoint arbitrator to hear grievance; AAA, in making this request Officer following Bowling procedure was forth in set the collective agreement bargaining concerning the appointment arbitra- Bowling’s request, tors. Per Officer AAA an arbitra- selected hearing tor and a was scheduled. Township filed complaint equity seeking injunctive
relief, requesting stay the trial court the arbitration proceedings. The trial court a probation- determined that as ary Officer was employee, Bowling not by covered collec- bargaining agreement tive proceed and not entitled to grievance. arbitration over his rejected The trial court alsо Bowling’s Officer claim that the issue of whether this matter was arbitrable by was to be first decided by not trial court. The trial court concluded that notwith- standing this court’s decision Labor Rela- Eagle District, tions Board v. Bald Area School (1982), it had over matter “present because the case revolves around the intent of the parties under an employment contract. Contractual intent clearly addressable the courts.” Tr. et. slip op. 5. The relief, trial court granted staying the arbitration proceedings.
Officer Bowling appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court held that the trial court had failed to address the issue of whether was a member Township’s police force. It therefore vacated the trial court’s order remanded the matter trial court for a question. determination The Commonwealth Court *4 beyond jurisdictional then went the issue which was before it and addressed the substantive issue which was not. The court expressed opinion the that “absent in specific language collective bargaining agreement itself to effect a [the probationary officer is covered a collective bargaining agreement], probationary subject officer is not protec- tions of a agreement.” collective bargaining Commw. Ct. slip
241 position In of this original). support in (emphases 6 op. officers, re- Court the Commonwealth probationary police on law from the case guidance faсt was no on that there lied the court’s conclu- support logic” this that “basic on issue and slip at 6 n. 6.2 op. Ct. sion. Commw. of appeal, allowance petition filed a Bowling then granted allocatur.
and this we are confronted is whether with which question over the court has or the trial arbitrator To answer grievance dispute.3 of this arbitrability of 111, act controls first to Act which we turn question, and police in officers which between grievances the manner are resolved. public employers their 111, firefighters officers and applies police of unrest years after by legislature only, promulgated was goal of the The central firefighting police in the forces. return these critical crafting this act was to legislature To that resolution stability. state of ensure labor forces certain, by involvement disputes labor was both swift and most of Act 111 is judiciary disputes in the resolution fully in our decision As detailed more circumscribed. severely Pennsylvania Troopers’ v. State State Police (1995), (Betancourt), 66, 83, 85 540 Pa. 656 A.2d Association is in the of Act 111 arbitration award the court’s review an nature narrow certiorari. issues arbitra- specifically
Act 111 does not state whether or the court bility to be determined arbitrator are first one, only jurisdictional As the court Ihe issue before 2. pronouncement whether a Commonwealth Court’s on agreement encompassed bargaining is a collective officer within foray expressing dicta. Since the Com- quеstionable was a into obiter moment, no substantive issue is of monwealth Court's discussion opinion. not examine it in this shall matter, plenary, as reviewing scope it is with our of review Co., any question Phillips Pa. 665 of law. v. A-Best Products Furthermore, (1995). solely a as A.2d this matter concerns law, determining our standard of review is limited law. See Stone Court erred a matter of Commonwealth Ins., Com., Dept. Agency, Ins. Inc. Edwards A.2d 2n. *5 Yet, system. holding a which would declare that such issues are to first set by judge be decided a would itself in opposition act; to the intrinsic purpose allowing judicial such in interference an area of law labor which the has legislature mightily strived to limit judiciary’s be involvement would highly improper. We therefore determine it is that most with consistent the dictаtes Act 111 to hold that court, and not the trial to make the initial determination whether issue is arbitrable.
We also note that such a is in holding accord with this court’s in pronouncements regard to answering this identical issue in dispute arising the context under the Public Employe §§ Relations 43 P.S. 1101.101-1101.2301 (“PERA”).4 District, Eagle Bald Area supra, School we held that it was to the arbitrator who was first determine the arbitrability of dispute arising under PERA. declared We that “folly full preliminaiy [to bout in the allow] ” courts over the of an jurisdiction.... arbitrator’s A.2d at 673. permit We stated that to such preliminary wrangling in the courts over the issue of whether a matter was arbitrable would labor permit disputes these mired become in litigation; Eagle down the Bald that declared such a scenariо was to light be avoided the fact that legislature disputes demanded these be settled via arbi litigation. tration rather than expressed abhorrence in Bold Eagle allowing judi- process
cial interference in a legislature dictated towas be left to the arbitrators is even more appropriate in the context of an matter. the public emрloyees While covered PERA by obviously perform useful services for the Commonwealth, citizens their functions are not as critical stability to the continued of a peaceful society as are performed those and firefighting personnel. As acts, separate, 4. While PERA and Act 111 are distinct we have stated issue, explicit give may where Act not 111 does dirеction on an arising examine how same issue PERA handled in order aid us Borough in our determination. See Whitaker Board, Labor Relations involving disputes recognized by legislature, sagaciously swiftly to be are resolved firefighting personnel police and unrest, the nimble arbitration is order labor prevent Allow- challenge. meet this timeliness mechanism which can process, stage judicial involvement ing judicial intent legislature’s preclude thereby thwarting the *6 law, most labor would be in this area of involvement sensitive unwise.5 however, below, the reason and courts Township is make the initial determina- it is trial court which to
that the Nigro misses the Respectfully, authored Mr. Justice the dissent on the issue of primary of that dissent is substantive mark. The focus emрloyee may grievance the arbitration invoke whether a Upper recently addressed in process, issue this court an Makefield Board, A.2d Pennsylvania 753 Labor Relations v. However, that is not our before 2000 Pa. Lexis 1541 Rather, only at the appeal. the issue before us is whether court in this outset, the to an arbitrator has initial a trial court or entity arbitrability. resolves the This threshold issue what determine any specific arbitrability Upper reason issue of transcends and Makefield dispute arbitrability. impacts of labor against It the framework proceedings. resolution upon this Nigro's that Justice dissent touches To the extent Mr. issue, the jurisdictional asserts that it is for trial court make (he determination, contrary position takes а that clear legislative favors resolution of labor policy discussed above which the Moreover, non-judicial practical disputes by import means. is the process. imposing layer of court intervention on the Our effect of already required expend would be their taxed resources trial courts dispute gatekeeper to the labor rеsolution on their newfound role as informal, speedy parties of an process; would lose benefit Furthermore, judges inexpensive dispute our means of resolution. agreements interpretation with labor grapple would be forced to parties. respect with intent Even limited to discern the status, employee’s probationary be instances in issue оf an there will agreement deter- bargaining must be reviewed to which the collective probation- of a language therein refutes the at-will status mine whether agreement’s ary grants employee employee and such access to 803, 806, Makefield, Upper A.2d grievance procedure. 753 resolution 1541, Yet, legislature has eschewed view 2000 Pa. Lexis *6. agrеements is a task for the interpretation labor the function judicial limit See judiciary and has evinced intent to involvement. Troopers’ Pennsylvania State Association State Police detail, (Betancourt), supra. Finally, explained view above in dissenting opinion opposition to this court’s espoused by this is in direct recognized that prior Eagle Area School District which decision Bald tion of whether a dispute is arbitrable. In support of this position, they rely upon § Pa.C.S. a provision found in Uniform Arbitration §§ Pa.C.S. 7301-7362 (“UAA”). reject We must position. While Pa.C.S. § 7304 does indeed allow a trial court to make the initial determination about the arbitrability of a dispute, the UAA specifically states that provisions its may apply only where they are “consistent with any statute regulating labor and management 7302(b). § relations.” 42 Pa.C.S. As we have determined that pursuant to Act the question of whether a matter is arbitrable must first be determined by the arbitra- tor, then provision the UAA which would vest the trial court with authority to determine this issue is patently inconsistent and inapplicable.
Therefore, affirm, albeit on grounds, different por- tion of the Commonwealth Court’s order vacating the order of the trial court. Furthermore, we vacate that portion of the Commonwealth Court’s order which remanded this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is relin- *7 quished.
Justice ZAPPALA files a dissenting opinion.
ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting. The test of whether a court jurisdiction over a particu- lar controversy depends upon ‘the competency of the court to determine controversies of general class to which the case presented for its consideration belonged, the court —whether had power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether it might ultimately decide that it was unable to grant the sought relief in the particular case’ Commonwealth Pennsylvania, of Department Public v. Court Common Plеas of Welfare of Philadelphia 410, County, (1984) 506 Pa. 755, 485 A.2d 758 (emphasis supplied; omitted.); citations See Flynn also v. Casa Di Bertacchi Corporation, 606, 449 Pa.Super. 674 A.2d 1099, (1996) (The 1105 ‘jurisdiction’ term relates to compe-
arbitrability is a determination best made an arbitrator in the first instance.
245
court,
body,
other
administrative
tency of the individual
general
of the
class
determine controversies
tribunal
belongs.)
case
particular
which
73,
Theaters,
Washington,
Inc. v. City
In Studio
(1965),
Town
extensively from Zerbe
quoted
802
209 A.2d
Thomas,
162, 44
Pa.
A.2d 566
District v.
353
ship School
(1945),
whether a court has
addressing
jurisdiction.
own
to determine its
authority
Thomas,
v.
... we
District
Zerbe
School
namely
applicable,
are
here
principles
stated
action,
his
standing
bring
have
plaintiff
no
though
even
demurrable,
though
even
he
complaint
be
though
even
though the court should
allegations,
fail
even
to establish its
not be
he seeks should
conclude that
relief
finally
circumstances would enter
granted, not
or all
these
determine,
into,
the court
less
question
much
out that
jurisdiction
litigation.
pointed
had
We there
of the court to
jurisdiction
competency
was the
test
class to which the
general
determine controversies
belonged,
case
for its consideration
presented
—whether
upon
not whether it
inquiry,
court had
to enter
power
ultimately
grant
unable to
relief
might
decide
it was
case....
sought
particular
in the
(emphasis supplied).
Justice files a dissenting opinion. NIGRO NIGRO, Justice, dissenting.
I I respectfully dissent as that the question believe whether appellant Bowling police, protected by is a officer Act agreement, the collective bargaining as distin- and/or guished from probationary police appointed officer for a period of one or less not year and therefore entitled to such protection, is a thrеshold fact be determined by Act, 812; § trial court. Police See Tenure 53 P.S. Upper Board, Township Labor Relations Makefield Thus, before the mandates of Act 111 arbitration come into the first play, order of business must to establish employee be whether an such as circumstances, Officer Bowling may, be deemed a permanent police officer. initially a hired as officer
for one year. Through one-year probationary period, his solely termination fell under the ambit of the Police Tenure policemen provides for a appointed probation- ary period of or year one less are at will employees and not afforded any protections of the reserved non-probationary Thus, § officers. 53 812.1 officer, P.S. as a probationary applicable The Police Tenure to a of the Second Class Sugarloaf, provides pertinent part: such as § 812. Removals person regular employed police any No as a full time officer in class, department any township borough second or or act, township of class scope the first within the of this with the exception policemen appointed probationary period for a of one less, year suspended, except shall be removed or reduced in rank (1) following physical for the disability reasons: affecting or mental service, ability person continue in which case the shall *9 grievance procedure not have access Bowling does permanent officers. during been Clearly, Bowling Officer terminated had Here, howev- § 812 would control. one-year probation, initial er, beyond term was extended Bowling’s probationary Officer therefore, is question, wheth- one-year period. the initial er, one-year expiration between the point some termination, wаs Bowling and his probationary period and therefore entitled to longer probationary no considered 111, or the CBA. of the Police Tenure protection favor Bowl- decided—and decided Until alone legislation permits, or let ing contract pertinent —no to arbitrate. compels, parties these is, then, an trial to decide whether The task fоr the hiring explicitly policeman was employee, who at time less, or period year of one appointed year. I beyond when one retains that status he worked Court and remand would therefore affirm the Commonwealth Only court for threshold to the trial determination. no finding longer pursuant to a that Officer §to would this matter probationary employеe pursuant then fall the ambit of an arbitrator. service; (2) neglect for violation discharge an honorable from receive (3) any provides duty; violating of law which that such official (4) inefficiency, felony; ne- a misdemeanor violation constituted orders, unbecoming glect, intemperance, or conduct disobedience officer; (5) duty---- on intoxication while added). (footnotes omitted)(emphasis §
53 P.S.