Appeal of Rose Tree Media School Dist.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1982
• Citation: 442 A.2d 23,65 Pa.Cmwlth. 148
• Parties: , 2 Ed. Law Rep. 1107 In re Appeal of ROSE TREE MEDIA SCHOOL DISTRICT. Appeal of ROSE TREE MEDIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 23

442 A.2d 23

65 Pa.Cmwlth. 148, 2 Ed. Law Rep. 1107

In re Appeal of ROSE TREE MEDIA SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Appeal of ROSE TREE MEDIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 16, 1981.

Decided March 4, 1982.

Alexander A. DiSanti, Richard, Brian, DiSanti & Hamilton, Media, for appellant.

Joseph A. Damico, Jr., Media, for appellee.

Before MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.

MENCER, Judge.

In 1978, Mary Margaret Hamill, a teacher in the Rose Tree Media School District (District), attended a course given by the Indiana State University of Pennsylvania and thereafter filed a request with the District for tuition reimbursement. The Superintendent denied her request on the ground that it was not "consistent with the qualifications as written in Article VI(I)(1)" of the collective bargaining agreement, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Board shall reimburse 100% of tuition up to $250. per teacher per year for all teachers who have completed two or more years as employes in the district.... Courses submitted for reimbursement must be approved by the Office of the Superintendent as directly beneficial to the teacher in his specialized field and to the district as a whole.

The Rose Tree Media Education Association (Union) then filed a grievance on behalf of Hamill, which ultimately proceeded to arbitration, in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator sustained the grievance and directed the District to reimburse Hamill for her tuition costs. On appeal by the District, the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County vacated the arbitrator's award and denied Hamill's grievance. We reverse the order of the lower court and reinstate the arbitrator's award.

In his opinion, the arbitrator noted that the Union took the position that Article VI(I)(1) of the collective bargaining agreement provides for tuition reimbursement where the study "is beneficial to the individual teacher in the performance of her duties and to the school district;" the District took the position that the agreement provides for tuition reimbursement only where the School Superintendent determines, in his discretion, that the study is beneficial to the "teacher in his specialized field as well as to the district as a whole." The arbitrator later indicated that the issue presented for arbitration was not whether the Superintendent abused his discretion in denying reimbursement, but whether the course attended by Hamill met the standards of the agreement, in the opinion of the arbitrator. The arbitrator concluded that the standards of the agreement were met, by determining that the topics studied were directly beneficial to Hamill in her position as a high school faculty member.

The lower court vacated the award on the basis that "(a) review of the contract indicates a clear intent to vest discretion in the superintendent with regard to the issue of tuition reimbursement.... In overruling the decision of the superintendent, the arbitrator usurped this 'bargained for' discretion of the superintendent." We cannot agree with the lower court's conclusion.

It has been held repeatedly that judicial review of an arbitrator's decision is highly circumscribed, and the award will not be overturned if it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. Ringgold Area School District v. Ringgold Education Association, 489 Pa. 380, 414 A.2d 118 (1980). Provided that the award is rationally derived from the collective bargaining agreement in light of its language, context, or other indicia of the parties' intention, we must respect the arbitrator's decision. Community College of Beaver County v. Community College of Beaver County, Society of the Faculty, 473 Pa. 576, 375 A.2d 1267 (1977).

In Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 85, 492 Pa. 494, 424 A.2d 1299 (1981), our Supreme Court dealt with an issue similar to that present here. The Port Authority had developed the practice of providing supplemental assistance to employees who were absent from work due to injuries sustained in work-related accidents for which they were not contributorily negligent. The injured employee's supervisor made an initial determination of contributory negligence, which was then subject to review by the Port Authority's Personnel Department. The Union demanded arbitration in the cases of five employees who had been denied supplemental assistance by the Port Authority. An arbitration panel found that two of the five employees had not been contributorily negligent and awarded supplemental assistance to those employees. The Port Authority argued on appeal that the arbitrator's award did not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, since the Port Authority had retained the exclusive power to make the determination of whether or not to grant supplemental assistance. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court stated as follows:

The panel was justified in finding that by agreeing to meet and treat on all grievances, to be fair and just in all dealings, and to arbitrate all disputes...