Thanhauser v. Douglass Twp.

• Decision Date: 18 July 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1169 C.D. 2017,1169 C.D. 2017
• Citation: 190 A.3d 786
• Parties: Kevin THANHAUSER and Robert Logan, Appellants v. DOUGLASS TOWNSHIP
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

190 A.3d 786

Kevin THANHAUSER and Robert Logan, Appellants

v.DOUGLASS TOWNSHIP

No. 1169 C.D. 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued June 4, 2018

Decided July 18, 2018

Michael P. Gottlieb, Norristown, for appellants.

Christopher P. Gerber, Chester Springs, for appellee.

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON

Retired police officers Kevin Thanhauser(Thanhauser) and Robert Logan(Logan)(collectively, Officers) appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County(trial court) granting the motion to dismiss filed by Douglass Township (Township) based on lack of jurisdiction.The Township Police Department employed Officers until their retirement.Officers' terms and conditions of employment, including retirement, were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act¹(Act 111).The trial court dismissed Officers' complaint in mandamus seeking to compel the Township to provide post-retirement health benefits established pursuant to Act 111 arbitration.The trial court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute required interpretation of negotiated terms and conditions of employment, which fall within an arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction.Discerning no error below, we affirm.

I.Background

While employed, Officers were members of the Police Officers' Collective Bargaining Unit.Am. Compl. at ¶ 5.As such, their terms and conditions of employment, including retirement, were governed by Act 111.

Prior to their retirements, Officers worked for the Township full-time.Logan retired in 2005. Am. Compl. at ¶ 2.At that time, retirement benefits were governed by the 2005-2007 Interest Arbitration Award (Award).The Award carried forward most terms in the 2002-2004 collective bargaining agreement (CBA).Thanhauser retired in June 2009, when the 2008-2011 CBA was in effect.

At the times of Officers' retirements, the operative CBAs and the Award provided that Officers and their spouses were entitled to receive post-retirement medical insurance benefits for life.Specifically, Section 10 of the Award stated in pertinent part, "the Township shall provide comparable health insurance benefits for officers and their spouses after retirement from the Township ... for the life of the retired officer."Reproduced Record (R.R.)at 130a(emphasis added).The 2008-2011 CBA contained virtually identical language, stating: "[The] Township shall provide comparable health insurance benefits for Officers and their spouses after retirement ... for the life of the retired Officer."R.R.at 146a(emphasis added).

As to grievances, the CBAs governing both Officers provided: "Grievances are limited to the matters involving the interpretation of [the CBA]" and include matters of discipline."Id. at 120a(2002-2004 CBA), 155a (2008-2011 CBA).The CBAs set forth the same graduated grievance procedure, comprised of four steps.²The "Grievance"section of the respective CBAs also stated (with emphasis added): "Failure to implement an award, administratively or legislatively, is enforceable through the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board as an unfair labor practice, or by a mandamus action in the courts."R.R.at 122a, 157a.

Officers became dissatisfied with their health insurance benefits when the Township's carrier discontinued the health plan in 2010.Active duty officers' coverage also changed as a result.Am. Compl. at ¶ 15.Although Officers continued to receive health insurance through the Township's plan, they contested the coverage as "inferior" to the coverage they received at the time they retired.Id.at ¶ 18.

Initially, Officers pursued the grievance process to enforce the health insurance benefits provisions of the CBAs and the Award.However, Officers discontinued the process during step two before the Township rendered a decision.

Instead of pursuing their grievances, in March 2013, Officers filed a complaint seeking mandamus relief.³Specifically, Officers sought to compel the Township to comply with Act 111 and provide them with "comparable health insurance benefits" to those in effect when they retired.Id.Officers argued the Township's new insurance plan did not provide the health insurance benefits to which they were contractually entitled.In addition, Officers sued for monetary damages to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses they incurred related to the coverage changes.

The Township filed preliminary objections alleging insufficient specificity and seeking joinder of the Police Department as a necessary party.Officers filed a response.The trial court dismissed the preliminary objections for lack of briefs.The Township then answered the complaint; it did not assert any new matter.

Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation allowing Officers to file an amended complaint, which they filed in March 2014(Amended Complaint).Although the Amended Complaint was endorsed with a notice to plead, the Township did not file a responsive pleading within the requisite 20 days.

The parties exchanged discovery, and in 2016, the parties completed discovery in accordance with the trial court's case management order.The trial court then listed the matter for trial.

Three years after receiving the Amended Complaint, in March 2017, the Township filed an answer with new matter.Among other defenses, the Township asserted the dispute must be resolved through the grievance process.Officers moved to strike the answer and new matter as untimely, alleging reliance on the Township's inaction as admitting the allegations in the Amended Complaint and waiving any defenses.The trial court, through Senior Judge Calvin Drayer, Jr., struck the answer and new matter.SeeR.R.at 383a(Tr. Ct. Order, 6/19/17).

While Officers' preliminary objections were pending, on April 21, 2017, the Township filed a separate motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction(Motion to Dismiss).R.R.at 385a-89a.Therein, the Township argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Officers' claims arose from a dispute under the CBAs, and were subject to mandatory statutory arbitration.In addition, the Township argued the mandamus claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations.

Officers responded to the Motion to Dismiss shortly thereafter.R.R.at 489a-543a.Significantly, Officers emphasized: "At no time prior to April 21, 2017 did [the Township] challenge the jurisdiction of [the][trial][c]ourt ...."Answer toMot. at ¶ 2(emphasis added);seealsoid.at ¶ 24("At no time until April 21, 2017[,] did the Township object to proceeding in mandamus.").

The trial court, through Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, granted the Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil ProcedureNo. 1032(b).R.R.at 544a(Tr. Ct. Order, 7/25/17).

Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), Officers filed a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal, as directed by the trial court.The trial court then issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion supporting dismissal.It reasoned that disputes involving construction of the Award and the CBAs were subject to arbitration under Act 111, and fell within an arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction.

After briefing and oral argument, the matter is ready for our disposition.

II.Issues

Although Officers present a number of issues for our review, the two jurisdiction-based challenges compel our consideration before turning to the merits.⁴First, we consider whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Officers' mandamus claims.We also assess whether the trial court was precluded from dismissing Officers' claims based on the coordinate jurisdiction rule.

III.Discussion

On appeal,⁵ Officers argue the matter is within the trial court's jurisdiction because arbitrated terms are enforceable through a mandamus action.Officers also maintain the Township waived any objection to the trial court's jurisdiction when it participated in the judicial process.In addition, Officers contend the trial court violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule by dismissing their claims after a judge of the same court struck new matter that alleged the dispute was solely subject to resolution through the grievance process.

The Township responds that Officers' claims must be arbitrated under Act 111.It contends the trial court lacks jurisdiction to interpret provisions of the CBAs or the Award, which are within an arbitrator's sole authority.The Township emphasizes Officers did not avail themselves of the grievance process as required.

A.Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The trial court dismissed Officers' mandamus suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 1032(b) because its disposition required interpretation of terms subject to mandatory arbitration under Act 111.

"Act 111 is the exclusive statute which governs the collective bargaining and employment relationships between police or fire personnel of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof."Fraternal Order of Police, White Rose Lodge No. 15 v. City of York, 708 A.2d 855, 858-59(Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).Disputes concerning terms and conditions of employment, including retirement, are subject to resolution through grievance arbitration.Section 1 of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.1.Grievance arbitration involves the resolution of a dispute over the proper interpretation of an existing collective bargaining agreement.Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 ex rel. Costello v. City of Phila., 725 A.2d 206(Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).

There is no dispute that Officers did not complete the grievance process.Instead, based on an agreement between counsel, Officers filed suit in the trial court.⁶In their mandamus claims, Officers alleged the Township did not provide "comparable ... health insurance benefits" to Officers and their spouses as the Award and the ...