Title: Boro of Ellwood City v. Ellwood City Police Dept. Wage & Policy Unit, Aplt (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-132-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT BOROUGH OF ELLWOOD CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, Appellee, v. ELLWOOD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WAGE AND POLICY UNIT, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 27 WAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered November 8, 2001 at No149CD2001, reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County entered December 21, 2000 at No10904of1999CA. 786 A.2d 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) ARGUED: September 11, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: JUNE 2, 2003 Although I agree with the majority's ultimate conclusion that Act 205 requires its provisions to apply notwithstanding an agreement to the contrary, and thus compels the conclusion that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in this case, I disagree with its treatment of Grottenthaler v. Pennsylvania State Police, 410 A.2d 806 (Pa. 1980). Specifically, I cannot concur with the majority's reasoning that Grottenthaler is distinguishable from this case because the Grottenthaler court "emphasized the identity of the employer as the Commonwealth in and of itself, as opposed to a political subdivision such as the Borough." Slip op. at 10-11. In my view, this does not constitute a principled reason for distinguishing Grottenthaler because that case did not hinge on such a distinction, as evidenced by the fact that the Grottenthaler court specifically relied on a collective bargaining case involving a municipal employer to support its conclusion that the Commonwealth was barred from asserting the applicable statutory prohibition. See Grottenthaler, 410 A.2d at 809 (citing Pittsburgh Joint Collective Bargaining Comm. v. City - 2 - of Pittsburgh, 391 A.2d 1318 (Pa. 1978)). Absent a logical explanation for holding Commonwealth employers to a different collective bargaining standard than municipal employers, I do not believe that the majority's holding can be reconciled with Grottenthaler. Instead, I would overrule Grottenthaler to achieve the result commanded by Act 205.