CBA Interest Arbitration Deviation from Act 47 Recovery Plan Appeal Process
Fraternal Order of Police Ft. Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. City of Pittsburgh, PICS Case No. 17-1228 (Pa. Commw. July 17, 2017) Jubelirer, J. (14 pages).
Interest arbitration award did not deviate from Act 47 plan and was therefore not directly appealable to the commonwealth court where award expressly adopted the salary increases set forth in the municipality's Act 47 plan. Motion to quash granted.
The Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, which represented police officers in the City of Pittsburgh, appealed from an arbitration board's interest arbitration award. In 2003, the city was designated a financially distressed city pursuant to Act 47, and entered Act 47 oversight, which included the implementation of recovery plans. The most recent 2014 recovery plan addressed the compensation of the city's employees, including its police officers. Both the city and FOP were parties to a CBA that expired at the end of 2014. After they were unable to reach agreement on a new CBA, the parties entered interest arbitration under Act 111. The arbitration board issued the interest arbitration award from which FOP appealed and the city cross-appealed.
On appeal, FOP argued that the award was a deviation from the 2014 plan because the award did not ensure the required competitive compensation. Thus, FOP contended, the court could review the award to determine if the arbitration board's deviation was in accordance with 252(b) of Act 47. In response, the city moved to quash FOP's petition for review, arguing that the award was consistent with the 2014 plan, and that as such FOP was really challenging the plan, which did not provide the court with jurisdiction. The city contended that the award complied with the 2014 plan allocations, and that because the award did not deviate from the plan the normal appeals process should have been followed.
The court noted that the typical process for challenging an interest arbitration award was to file a petition to vacate with the trial court, as the parties had done in this case in addition to filing the present direct appeal. However, the court further noted that the legislature had amended 252 to allow an Act 111 arbitration board to issue an award deviating from an Act 47 plan under certain circumstances, and to permit a direct appeal of such an award. Thus, the court noted that it would only have jurisdiction over FOP's appeal if the arbitration board's award deviated from the 2014 plan.