Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia

Decision Date28 January 1999
CitationFraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, 725 A.2d 206 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999)
PartiesFRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE NO. 5, by its trustee ad litem Richard COSTELLO, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Thomas H. Kohn, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Mark J. Foley, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before FLAHERTY, J., LEADBETTER, J., and RODGERS, Senior Judge.

LEADBETTER, Judge.

The Fraternal Order of Police, LodgeNo. 5(FOP) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County(trial court) denying its petition to vacate or modify an interest arbitration award.

The facts, as found by the trial court, are as follows.The FOP is the exclusive bargaining representative for certain employees of the City of Philadelphia(City) who work in the Sheriff's Department and the office of the Register of Wills.Following the June 30, 1992 expiration of the collective bargaining agreement for these employees, the City and the FOP were unsuccessful in negotiating a successor agreement.In October 1995, the FOP declared an impasse and initiated interest arbitration1 under Section 805 of the Public Employe Relations Act,2 commonly known as "Act 195,"43 P.S. § 1101.805.3Following hearings, the arbitration panel(two party-appointed arbitrators and one "neutral") issued an award, over the dissent of the FOP's arbitrator, that set forth the terms and conditions of employment for the affected City employees for the period commencing July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 2000.4

The FOP petitioned to vacate or modify the award, asserting that there was insufficient testimonial evidence in the record to support six of its provisions.5The trial court concluded that the City presented ample evidence to support the arbitrators' findings concerning the challenged award provisions and denied the petition.This appeal followed.On appeal, the FOP again asserts insufficiency in the evidence to support the challenged provisions of the award.

The scope of review of an Act 195 interest arbitration award is an issue of first impression.6The FOP asserts that we should review the award under the "essence test," as did the trial court.Under the essence test, applied in reviewing grievance awards under Act 195, we will uphold an award as long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement in force.Crawford County v. AFSCME Dist. Council 85 Local UnionNo. 2643,693 A.2d 1385, 1388(Pa.Cmwlth.1997).We find the essence test singularly inappropriate, however, for review of an interest arbitration award.In interest arbitration, there is no collective bargaining agreement for the arbitrators to interpret.Indeed, the point and goal of interest arbitration is for the arbitrators to formulate an agreement because the parties have been unable to do so.Thus, review of whether an interest award draws its essence from a nonexistent agreement would be oxymoronic.

Presumably realizing that the essence test as universally defined sets forth an impossible framework for reviewing an interest award, the FOP suggests that we rewrite the test to provide that an interest award must be vacated where it is not supported by the evidence presented to the arbitrators.Appellant suggests that an award must be supported by "record evidence or there is a denial of due process."In this regard, appellant cites a series of federal decisions, all of which arise in the context of grievance arbitration awards.The flaw in appellant's argument is that it ignores the fundamental distinction between the two types of proceedings.Grievance arbitration is essentially a factfinding process.In many cases, the arbitrator(s) must determine whether a violation of the collective bargaining agreement has occurred and, if so, fashion a remedy under the terms of that agreement.In other cases, the arbitrator(s) must resolve a dispute over the proper interpretation of the agreement.This, too, is a factfinding exercise.SeeCommunity College of Beaver County v. Community College of Beaver County, Soc'y of the Faculty (PSEA/NEA),473 Pa. 576, 592, 375 A.2d 1267, 1275(1977).A reviewing court can readily determine whether there is support in the evidence and the agreement for the findings and the ultimate award.

On the other hand, interest arbitration involves fashioning a new contract by compromising the competing interests and desires of opposing parties who simply cannot agree.We are at a loss to determine how a reviewing court could measure the sufficiency of "evidence" to support the award of a contract provision propounded by one side and resisted by the other.

Even if we were not persuaded by such pragmatic considerations, we would still conclude that the proper scope of review is narrow certiorari, utilized by our courts in reviewing interest awards under Act 111.7In light of the similarity between mandatory interest arbitration pursuant to Act 111 and mandatory interest arbitration pursuant to Act 195, and the history and caselaw interpreting the statutory language, we believe that the same scope of review is applicable under both provisions.

In 1968, Act 111 conferred upon police and firefighters the right to bargain collectively, but withheld the right to strike because of the crucial services they perform.To resolve bargaining impasses, Act 111 mandated that employers submit to binding interest arbitration pursuant to the procedures specified therein.Township of Moon v. Police Officers of Township of Moon,508 Pa. 495, 503, 498 A.2d 1305, 1309(1985).Two years later, Act 195 conferred the right to bargain collectively on the remaining public employees.Because their services were not as critical to public safety and welfare, the legislature conferred a limited right to strike and provided a voluntary interest arbitration procedure, with the exception of mental hospital and prison guards and court employees.8Because the services of guards and court employees, like those of Act 111 employees, are critical to public safety and welfare, the legislature withheld the right to strike from these groups and mandated binding interest arbitration in the case of an impasse in contract negotiations.It is with these groups that we are here concerned.

In Washington Arbitration Case,436 Pa. 168, 174, 259 A.2d 437, 441(1969), our Supreme Court determined that interest arbitration awards are appealable only pursuant to a narrow certiorari scope of review.Quoting Keystone Raceway Corp. v. State Harness Racing Comm'n,405 Pa. 1, 5-6, 173 A.2d 97, 99(1961), the court noted:

If an appeal is prohibited by an Act, or the decision of the Agency is stated to be final or conclusive, the law is well settled that an appeal will lie to the Courts in the nature of a narrow certiorari and this Court will review only (1) the question of jurisdiction; (2) the regularity of the proceedings before the Agency; (3) questions of excess in exercise of powers; and (4) constitutional questions.

436 Pa. at 174, 259 A.2d at 441.9

Both Act 111 and Act 195 provide that interest awards are final and binding, and neither Act 111 nor Act 195 provides for an appeal from such awards.10Act 111 provides that the arbitrators' decision "shall be final on the issue or issues in dispute and shall be binding upon the public employer and the policemen or firemen involved....No appeal therefrom shall be allowed to any court."43 P.S. § 217.7.Similarly, Section 805 of Act 195 provides that an interest award "shall be final and binding upon both parties," and makes no allowance for judicial review.43 P.S. § 1101.805.11Accordingly, we hold that appeals from mandatory interest arbitration under Section 805 are limited, like appeals under Act 111, to review in the nature of narrow certiorari.

We do not, by rejecting appellant's proffered scope of review, in any way suggest that one is not entitled to due process in interest arbitration proceedings, only that due process does not require application of appellant's reformulated "essence test" in their review.Arbitration panels must conduct their proceedings in accordance with the mandates of due process.Washington,436 Pa. at 173, 259 A.2d at 440.The essential elements of due process are notice and the opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing before an impartial decisionmaker.Abramovich v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd.,490 Pa. 290, 294, 416 A.2d 474, 476(1980);Greenstein v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Health,98 Pa.Cmwlth. 445, 512 A.2d 739, 743(1986).The FOP has not asserted that it did not receive proper notice or an opportunity to be heard, nor that the panel was biased or predisposed against it.There is nothing in the record to indicate that the FOP was denied a fair hearing.The FOP argues only that due process requires us to determine whether the award was supported by testimony of record, an inquiry precluded under narrow certiorari review.For purposes of the due process clause, however, there is no basis to distinguish between appeals under Act 111 and those under Act 195.12

The only specific claim of error cognizable under the narrow certiorari scope of review is the FOP's claim that the arbitrators exceeded their power by including paragraph five in the award.13An arbitration panel's powers are limited; it may not mandate that a public employer perform an illegal act, i.e., an act that is prohibited by law or is not within the employer's authority.Appeal of Upper Providence Police Delaware County Lodge No. 27 Fraternal Order of Police,514 Pa. 501, 513, 526 A.2d 315, 321(1987).In addition, a panel may only require a public employer to do that which the employer could do voluntarily.Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers' Ass'n (Betancourt),540 Pa. 66, 79, 656 A.2d 83, 90(1995).The FOP argues, citing Dunmore Police Ass'n v. Borough of Dunmore,107 Pa.Cmwlth. 306, 528 A.2d 299(1987), that paragraph five, which provides that "any proposal by the City to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
13 cases
  • Com. v. Mannion
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • February 5, 1999
    ... ... The Commonwealth appeals from the suppression court's order entered October 6, 1997, 1 granting Winifred Mannion's ... on Mannion's door, identified themselves as state police troopers, and stated that they were investigating an ... ...
  • Dep't of Corr. v. Pa. State Corr. Officers Ass'n
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 20, 2011
    ... ... [12 A.3d 349] Stephen J. Holroyd, Philadelphia, Thomas W. Jennings, Jennings Sigmond, P.C., for ... See id. at 364 n. 7 (citing Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers' Ass'n (Betancourt), 540 Pa. 66, 71, ... vesting exclusive jurisdiction in department heads, city councils, mayors, and supervisors to set salaries and other ... The Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed in part and reversed ... City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 595 Pa. 47, 938 ... ...
  • Dep't Of Corr. v. Pa. State Corr. Officers Ass'n
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 20, 2011
    ... ...         Appeal from the Order and published opinion of the Commonwealth Court dated ... See id. at 364 n.7 (citing Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers' Ass'n (Betancourt) , 540 Pa. 66, ... vesting exclusive jurisdiction in department heads, city councils, mayors, and supervisors to set salaries and ... where the arbitrator required the City of Philadelphia to assign certain duties to police staff inspectors rather ... ...
  • Department of Corrs. v. State Corrs.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • September 10, 2007
    ...award relating to legal representation is at variance with a regulation, it is not reviewable under the narrow certiorari test. In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 ex rel. Costello v. City of Philadelphia, 725 A.2d 206 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), we held that appeals from mandatory interest arb......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT