Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Sec. Officers No. 1
| Decision Date | 28 January 1983 |
| Citation | 455 A.2d 625,500 Pa. 213 |
| Parties | PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. UNION OF SECURITY OFFICERS # 1. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Ronald L. Wolf, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before O'BRIEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ.
At issue on this appeal is the validity of an award of an arbitrator which reinstated a security officer employed by appellant Philadelphia Housing Authority whom the Authority had discharged. The Authority's petition to modify or correct the arbitrator's award was denied by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, and the denial was affirmed by a divided panel of the Commonwealth Court. Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers No. 1, 55 Pa.Cmwlth.Ct. 640, 423 A.2d 1123 (1980). We granted allowance of appeal, and now reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court and vacate the award of the arbitrator.
The security officer, Richard Green, was discharged on March 27, 1979, for allegedly using his position to obtain for his own benefit $900 belonging to Henry Herbert, an elderly resident at the housing project where Green had worked. Following Green's discharge, appellee Union of Security Officers No. 1 sought reinstatement of Green pursuant to the grievance procedure provided in the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. The agreement provided that "[t]he Authority may for just cause take whatever disciplinary action it deems appropriate at its discretion." When the parties failed to reach an agreement, the union invoked its right to arbitration.
At the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found that Green, by virtue of a relationship of trust and confidence with Herbert, had induced Herbert to deposit $900 in a joint bank account, ostensibly as a fund for Herbert's funeral expenses, that Green had withdrawn the money for his own use, and that Green had lied to his employer during the investigation of his conduct. Despite these findings, the arbitrator reinstated Green without loss of seniority or other benefits, believing that the loss of back pay for the eight months during which Green had been suspended was "sufficient punishment."
The arbitrator's reinstatement of Green was apparently based on the arbitrator's finding that Green had induced Herbert to part with his money by playing on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rider v. Com. of Pa.
...127, 515 A.2d at 1003. Applying both the "rational derivation essence test" set forth in Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers No. 1, 500 Pa. 213, 216, 455 A.2d 625, 627 (1983) and the "reasonableness language" test used in International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oil......
-
Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers' Ass'n (Betancourt)
...mitigating factors to find no "just cause" for dismissal and substituted a lesser penalty); Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers, 500 Pa. 213, 455 A.2d 625 (1983) (award was not rationally derived from CBA where arbitrator found grievant had committed crime of fraud ......
-
Westmoreland v. Westmoreland Intermediate
...Pa. 380, 548 A.2d 1194 (1988) (applying a reasonableness review standard as part of the essence test); Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Union of Sec. Officers No. 1, 500 Pa. 213, 455 A.2d 625 (1983) (applying a "manifestly unreasonable" standard). Furthermore, it is notable that the Cheyney University......
-
Philadelphia Hous. Auth. v. Am. Fed.
...generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213, 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380, 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvani......