City of Arnold v. Wage Policy Comm. of Arnold Police Dep't ex rel. Cimino
Decision Date | 20 May 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 1519 C.D. 2015,1519 C.D. 2015 |
Citation | 138 A.3d 719 |
Parties | CITY OF ARNOLD, Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. WAGE POLICY COMMITTEE OF the CITY OF ARNOLD POLICE DEPARTMENT, o/b/o Pamela CIMINO. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
John E. Pallone, Arnold, for appellant.
Ronald R. Retsch, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
BEFORE: PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, and MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, and DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge.
OPINION BY Judge MICHAEL H. WOJCIK
.
The City of Arnold (City)1 appeals the order of the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying its motion to vacate a grievance arbitration award issued under the Collective Bargaining by Policemen or Firemen Act (Act 111).2 We reverse.
Thomas Cimino (Decedent) died in April 2002, after serving as a City police officer for 11.77 years. In May 2002, the City's Controller informed his widow, Pamela Cimino (Widow), that she was entitled to a death/survivor benefit of $1,949.11 per month, which was 50% of Decedent's annual compensation at the time of his death.3 This death benefit was reconfirmed in a July 2003 letter from the City's Controller to Widow. Supplemental Reproduced Record (S.R.R.) at 1b–4b.
At the time of Decedent's death, Section 1 of Article XXIV of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the City and its officers' bargaining representative, the Wage Policy Committee of the City of Arnold Police Department (Union), stated that “[p]olice officers who have completed twelve (12) years of full-time service shall be entitled to vest his/her pension....” Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 35. Additionally, Section 5 of Article XVII of the CBA stated, in relevant part:
All pension benefits not in conflict with any sections of this Article and adopted by ordinance and in existence at the time of the signing of this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference into this Agreement including but not limited to ... Ordinance No. 3 of 1987, Enacted October 1, 1987 [ (Ordinance 3) ]. However, the aforesaid provisions contained in this section shall be amended by the Municipality to provide that the widow of a Policeman shall receive one hundred percent (100%) of the pension which a Policeman would have been entitled to receive or was receiving at the time of his death.
Id. at 32–33. See also id. at 24 ().
In turn, Section 5 of the City's Ordinance 3 states, in relevant part:
Although not specifically incorporated into the CBA, Ordinance No. 6 of 1997, Enacted November 11, 1997 (Ordinance 6), states in Section 4.02 of Article IV that “[t]he normal form of retirement benefit shall be paid monthly and shall be an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the Participant's Average Monthly Compensation.” R.R. at 60. Additionally, Section 6.01(b) of Article VI of Ordinance 6 states, in pertinent part:
Id. at 62–63. Finally, Section 6.03 provides that “[t]he Death Benefit provided in this Article VI shall be paid to the surviving spouse of the Participant until such person dies or remarries....” Id. at 63.
Widow began receiving the monthly death benefit in 2002 and received 142 monthly payments of $1,949.11 from the City. In February 2014, the City's Police Pension Board (Pension Board)5 determined that, pursuant to Section 6.01(b) of Ordinance No. 6, Widow was only entitled to a monthly death benefit of $974.55, or 50% of 50% of Decedent's average monthly compensation. R.R. at 15. As a result, the Board reduced Widow's benefit to $974.55 per month and determined that she had received an overpayment of $138,386.10 that would be recouped at $10.00 per month until she dies or the overpayment is repaid in full. Id.
The City filed a petition to vacate the award that the trial court denied. The trial court first determined that “no issues have been raised by [the City] regarding the regularity of the proceedings in this matter, nor have any issues been raised regarding the deprivation of constitutional rights.” Trial Court 7/22/15 Opinion at 4. The trial court next found “that this matter does fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.” Id. The court explained Id. Finally, the trial court determined that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in the award by mandating that the City perform an illegal act. Id. at 4–5. The trial court noted that the Third Class City Code specifically permits the City to provide Widow “with the death benefit pension plan that she has been receiving.” Id. at 5. The City then filed the instant appeal.
Initially, we note that an appeal of a grievance arbitration award under Act 111 is reviewed under a narrow certiorari standard which permits inquiry only into the following four areas: (1) the jurisdiction of the arbitrator; (2) the regularity of the proceedings; (3) an excess of the arbitrator's powers; or (4) the deprivation of constitutional rights. Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Association (Keyes), 54 A.3d 129, 132–33 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012)
, appeal denied, 620 Pa. 726, 69 A.3d 604 (2013). As this Court has explained:
, Pa. Const. art. III, § 31, authorizes the General Assembly to “enact laws which provide that the findings of panels or commissions, selected and acting in accordance with law for the adjustment or settlement of grievances or disputes or for collective bargaining between policemen and firemen and their public employers shall be binding upon all parties....” [Emphasis added.] The phrase “in accordance with law” in Article 3, Section 31 “means that the arbitrators, in conducting their hearings and making an award ... must adhere to the mandates of the enabling legislation.”
Borough of Gettysburg v. Teamsters Local No. 776, 103 A.3d 389, 394–95 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014)
(citations and footnotes omitted). Moreover, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial