Palyok v. Borough of West Mifflin

• Decision Date: 04 February 1991
• Citation: 586 A.2d 366,526 Pa. 324
• Parties: Michael PALYOK, Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF WEST MIFFLIN, Jack Bergman, Theresa Corso, Joseph Mahoney and Irene Parkinson, Members of West Mifflin Police Pension Fund, Appellees.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 366

586 A.2d 366

526 Pa. 324

Michael PALYOK, Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF WEST MIFFLIN, Jack Bergman, Theresa Corso, Joseph Mahoney and Irene Parkinson, Members of West Mifflin Police Pension Fund, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 28, 1990.

Decided Feb. 4, 1991.

[526 Pa. 325] Ronald P. Koerner, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Donald C. Fetzko, West Mifflin, for appellees.

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

OPINION

McDERMOTT, Justice.

On May 1, 1985, appellant, Michael Palyok, retired after serving twenty-seven (27) years as an officer on the police force of appellee Borough of West Mifflin, Allegheny County (Borough). Upon retirement, appellant became eligible for pension benefits pursuant to a series of ordinances adopted by the Borough in accordance with the Act of May 29, 1956, P.L. (1955), 1804 et seq., as amended; 53 P.S. § 767 et seq., commonly referred to as the Police Pension Fund Act (Act). ¹ The dispute in the instant case involves the proper formula to be used in determining the amount of monthly pension benefits to which the appellant is entitled. More specifically, the issue presented is whether the word "salary," as used in the Act for purposes of determining monthly pension benefits, encompasses basic salary alone or basic salary and overtime pay and "extra work" pay. ² The relevant portion of the Act provides as follows: "Monthly pension or retirement benefits other than length of service increments shall be computed at one-half the monthly average salary of such member during not more than the last sixty nor less than the last thirty-six months of employment." (emphasis supplied). 53 P.S. § 771. The word "salary" is not defined in the statute.

The pertinent facts of the case sub judice have been stipulated to by the parties as follows. During the last thirty-six (36) months of his employment, ³ appellant earned a total gross compensation in the amount of $96,835.76, which compensation consisted of $86,727,65 basic pay, $1,429.88 overtime and $8,678.23 extra work pay. From the gross compensation, including the overtime and extra work pay, the Borough withheld the required amounts for federal and state taxes and Social Security and deducted additional amounts as appellant's contribution toward the pension fund. ⁴ The Borough, in calculating appellant's monthly pension benefits, used only his basic pay during the last thirty-six (36) month period (i.e. $86,727.65) and excluded his overtime and extra work pay. Based upon the Borough's calculations, appellant is currently receiving monthly pension benefits in the amount of $1204.55. If the pension benefits were computed using basic pay and overtime and extra pay, as appellant contends the Act demands, his monthly pension benefits would be $1344.94.

Appellant filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County seeking to force the Borough to include overtime and extra work pay in the calculation determining his monthly benefits. The trial court found for the Borough, notwithstanding the court's acknowledgement that requiring appellant to contribute to the pension fund based on his gross compensation, including overtime and extra work pay, while calculating his pension using only his basic pay was an apparent inequity. The court felt compelled to reach that decision based on the Commonwealth Court's previous interpretation of the Act in Borough of Beaver v. Liston, 76 Pa.Cmwlth. 619, 464 A.2d 679 (1983). In Liston, like the instant case, the issue presented was whether the word "salary," as used in the Act, should include overtime pay. Unlike the instant case, however, the retiree in the Liston case did not have pension fund contributions deducted from his overtime pay. The Commonwealth Court, in Liston, held that the word "salary" encompassed only basic pay and not overtime pay. In deciding the appeal of the instant case, the Commonwealth Court held that the Liston case was controlling as to the question presented, ⁵ notwithstanding the factual difference concerning the deductions from appellant's overtime pay toward the pension fund. 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 25, 551 A.2d 622. That decision was in error and we now reverse.

Although this Court has not previously interpreted the word "salary" as used in the Act, we have addressed a very similar circumstance in Rockwell v. York County Retirement Board, 405 Pa. 406, 175 A.2d 831 (1961). In Rockwell, we determined that a court stenographer's retirement benefits, under the relevant pension fund act, ⁶ should be computed based on the stenographer's salary and folio and transcript fees rather than the basic salary alone. Our rationale in that case was that the folio and transcripts fees were payments "arising from business connected with the court." Id. at 414, 175 A.2d at 835. This rationale obtains in the instant case as well. In performing overtime and extra work, appellant was carrying on the same governmental business he performed in earning his basic salary i.e. protecting the public weal. We see no reason to treat the compensation received for these additional governmental services any differently than the compensation received for the...