Guthrie v. Borough of Wilkinsburg

• Decision Date: 04 October 1985
• Citation: 499 A.2d 570,508 Pa. 590
• Parties: Keith GUTHRIE, Bernard McKenna, Paul Miller, Henry Riebold, Joseph Saunders, David Shook, Paul Van Geis and Frank Weber, Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF WILKINSBURG, Dr. John G. Wilkins, Mayor, Karl R. Newman, Mary A. Reich, Walter S. Byrnes, George M. Hoffman, John J. Joyce, J. Gary Lewis, Alex B. Main, John D. Pharr, Jr. and Edith M. Washington, Members of Council, Appellees. 84 W.D. 1984
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 570

499 A.2d 570

508 Pa. 590

Keith GUTHRIE, Bernard McKenna, Paul Miller, Henry RieboldJoseph Saunders, David Shook, Paul Van Geis and Frank Weber, Appellants, v.BOROUGH OF WILKINSBURG, Dr. John G. Wilkins, Mayor, Karl R Newman, Mary A. Reich, Walter S. Byrnes, George M. HoffmanJohn J. Joyce, J. Gary Lewis, Alex B. Main, John D. Pharr Jr. and Edith M. Washington, Members of Council, Appellees.

84 W.D. 1984

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 7, 1985.

Decided Oct. 4, 1985.

[508 Pa. 592] Ronald P. Koerner, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.

Paul V. Ressler, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LARSEN, Justice.^*

In 1977-78, police officers employed by the Borough of Wilkinsburg (the Borough) entered into negotiations with representatives of their employer in an attempt to reach a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to "Act 111", Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, No. 111, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1-217.10(Supp.1984-85), which authorizes collective bargaining between political subdivisions and their policemen and firemen and provides for final, binding arbitration in the event of an impasse in negotiations.An arbitration panel was convened in order to resolve the impasse that arose in the instant case and, on March 4, 1978, the arbitrators entered an award which included the following provisions for compensation:

AWARD

1.All of the terms and conditions of the 1976-1977 Agreement between the

parties, except as changed or modified by this Award will remain in full

force and effect.

* * *

4.Salary

------

For the calendar year 1978, the annual salary for Police officers in the

Bourough of Wilkinsburg shall be calculated and paid according to the

following schedule:

RANK [SALARY]

----

CHIEF OF POLICE

DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT

SERGEANT

DETECTIVE

REGULAR PATROLMAN

PATROLMAN--[LEVEL SIX THROUGH THREE - these various levels of PATROLMAN were

based solely upon length of service with the Wilkensburg Police Department]

PROVISIONARY PATROLMAN--[LEVELS TWO AND ONE - these levels of PROVISIONARY

PATROLMAN were also based upon length of service]

The arbitration award set forth the salary to be paid police officers at the various ranks recognized therein.The salary awarded to police officers holding the rank of "detective" was $760.00 more than the salary awarded to police officers holding the rank of "regular patrolman."The Borough honored all of the provisions of the arbitration award except that it refused to pay the $760.00 increment awarded the police officers, designated detectives and instead paid those officers the salary established for "regular" patrolmen.Consequently, the detective police officers, appellants herein, filed an action in mandamus in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against the Borough, its mayor and its council members, appellees, seeking to compel compliance with the arbitration award relating to their salaries.Appellees defended the refusal to comply with the award of the arbitrators on the grounds that such award was tantamount to the "creation" of the rank of detective and that, since the rank of detective was not officially adopted by ordinance of borough council pursuant to the Borough Code of 1966, Act of February 1, 1966, P.L. 581, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 46001-46199, the award was illegal.¹The court found as a fact, based upon substantial evidence introduced at trial, that there was, and had been for a long period of time, a Detective Division within the Wilkinsburg Police Department and that the de facto positions of detective and detective lieutenant were recognized by department officials and certain other Borough officials.However, the court also found that there were no de jure positions of detective or detective lieutenant within the department because such positions had not been officially established by Borough ordinance enacted by council.These findings of the court are not in dispute.

The court accepted appellees' premise that the award of the arbitrators "created" the rank of detective, and held that:

In order that the plaintiffs may prevail in this mandamus proceeding, it must be shown that under the law of Pennsylvania that a rank within a borough police department can be created by the action and conduct of the head of the police department, the mayor and other administrative personnel, but short of the procedure of the adoption of an ordinance by the borough council....In this case the General Assembly mandate required an ordinance of council.

The "General Assembly mandate" was gleaned from section 1121 of the Borough Code, 53 P.S. § 46121, which provides, in relevant part, that the "borough may, by ordinance, establish a police department consisting of chief, captain, lieutenant, sergeants, or any other classification desired by the council, and council may, subject to the civil service provisions of this act, ... designate the individuals assigned to each office...."As Borough OrdinanceNo. 2009, in effect at the time of the arbitration award, created only the classifications of chief of police, lieutenant, sergeant and patrolman, and did not establish a separate "detective" classification, the court viewed the arbitration award as illegal, and dismissed the mandamus complaint.

A court en banc dismissed appellants' exceptions to this ruling, and appeal was taken to the Commonwealth Court which affirmed.81 Pa.Cmwlth. 73, 472 A.2d 285(1984).The Commonwealth Court agreed that the arbitration award was illegal under the Borough Code, but emphasized the civil service provisions of the Code which provide, inter alia, that "each and every appointment to and promotion in the police force ... shall be made only according to qualifications and fitness, to be ascertained by examinations which shall be competitive...."Id. at 472 A.2d 286, quoting fromsection 1171 of the Borough Code, 53 P.S. § 46171.The Commonwealth Court held that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint in mandamus because appellants"failed to establish a clear legal right to a promotion from regular patrolman to detective."Id. at 472 A.2d 286.

We granted appellants' petition for allowance of appeal and we now reverse.At issue is the validity and enforceability of the arbitration award establishing salaries for certain police officers who are patrolmen that have been performing specialized, investigative duties within the division designated "Detective Division" of the Wilkinsburg Police Department, where that salary exceeds that of other "regular patrolmen" police officers in the department.Under Act 111 and the Borough Code, such an arbitration award for compensation is eminently valid and enforceable.² Our obvious starting point is Act 111 which provides that policemen and firemen "have the right to bargain collectively with their public employers concerning the terms and conditions of employment, including compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions ³ and other benefits.... in accordance with the terms of this act."Section 1,43 P.S. § 217.1.Section 7 of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.7, further provides, in relevant part:

Determination; appeal; implementation ...

(a) The determination of the majority of the board of arbitration thus established shall be final on the issue or issues in dispute and shall be binding upon the public employer and the policemen or firemen involved.Such determination shall be in writing and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to both parties to the dispute.No appeal therefrom shall be allowed to any court.Such determination shall constitute a mandate to the head of the political subdivision which is the employer ... with respect to matters which can be remedied by administrative action, and to the lawmaking body of such political subdivision ... with respect to matters which require legislative action, to take the action necessary to carry out the determination of the board of arbitration.(emphasis added).

As is apparent from the strong wording of section 7, Act 111 requires much deference be given an award of a panel of arbitrators and emphatically disapproves court intervention in dispute resolution under its auspices.Chirico v. Board of Supervisors for Newton Township, 504 Pa. 71, 470 A.2d 470, 475(1983).The arbitrators' "resolution of the dispute must be sure and swift, and much of [the arbitrators'] effectiveness would be lost if the mandate of [their] decision could be delayed indefinitely through protracted litigation."City of Washington v. Police Department of Washington, 436 Pa. 168, 173, 259 A.2d 437, 440(1969).

Nevertheless, this Court has recognized that, even though Act 111 states "No appeal shall be allowed to any court", limited court review of an arbitration award is available to review (1) the jurisdiction of the arbitrators; (2) the regularity of the proceedings; (3) questions of excess in exercise of powers; and (4) constitutional questions.City of Washington v. Police Department of Washington, supra at 174, 259 A.2d at 441(seecases cited therein).Applying this limited standard of review to mandamus proceedings, we have upheld political subdivisions' defenses of illegality of arbitration awards where the award has contravened municipal statutory law or would require the subdivision to take action that would be illegal.See, e.g., City of Washington v. Police Department of Washington, supra(invalidating portion of award regarding payment of hospitalization insurance premiums as contravening third class city code);Conley v. Joyce, 482 Pa. 263, 393 A.2d 654(1978)(invalidated arbitration award to the extent it was in contravention of third class city code);City of York v. Reihart, 475 Pa. 151, 379 A.2d 1328(1979)(same; declaratory judgment action).The framework for review of an arbitration award under Act 111 was set forth in City of...