Title: School Dist., Etc. v. Duquesne Ed. Ass'n

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

475 Pa. 279 (1977) 380 A.2d 353 The SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF DUQUESNE v. DUQUESNE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, and Grievance of Richard P. Moran. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 29, 1977. Decided December 1, 1977. *280 John R. DeAngelis, Pittsburgh, for appellant. Norman M. Bartko, Duquesne, for appellee. Before O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and PACKEL, JJ. O'BRIEN, Justice. This appeal arises from an order of the Commonwealth Court which reversed an arbitration award in favor of the grievant, Richard P. Moran. Moran is a professional employee of appellee, The School District of the City of Duquesne (School District). Appellant, the Duquesne Education Association (Education Association), of which Moran is a member, is the exclusive bargaining representative for the professional employees of the School District. On June 30, 1974, the collective bargaining agreement between the Education Association and the School District expired. In September of 1974, the teachers returned to work without a contract. The parties finally reached an agreement in early December, with both parties ratifying the agreement a short time later. The collective bargaining agreement, which was formally executed in January of 1975, was made effective retroactively to July 1, 1974. *281 In May of 1974, the School District, in accordance with the then existing bargaining agreement, posted notices that it was accepting applications for the position of assistant junior high basketball coach. Both Moran, a teacher with eleven years seniority and Archie Perrin, a second year teacher, applied for the job. On July 8, 1974, one week after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the board of school directors named Mr. Perrin as assistant basketball coach. Following ratification of the new agreement by both parties, Moran filed a grievance on December 11, 1974. Pursuant to the procedures called for in the agreement, the dispute eventually went to arbitration, where the arbitrator found in favor of Moran. The School District appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which on June 18, 1976, reversed the arbitrator's award and dismissed the grievance. School District of City of Duquesne v. Duquesne Education Association, 25 Pa.Cmwlth. 216, 359 A.2d 850 (1976). The Education Association filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which we granted on September 13, 1976. The collective bargaining agreement provides, in relevant part: "D. Additional Assignments The substance of Moran's grievance was that, being equally qualified, he was entitled to the assistant basketball coach job by virtue of more seniority. The agreement also provides for the following grievance procedure: In the instant case, the school board voted to give the position to Mr. Perrin on July 8, 1974. Mr. Moran filed his grievance on December 11, 1974, a few days after the new agreement was ratified by both the Education Association and the School District. The normal grievance procedure was followed and at step three, the school board of directors found against Moran, stating that in the board's opinion, Mr. Perrin was better qualified. The School District at no time during the first three levels of the grievance procedure raised Moran's failure to file within fifteen days of the occurrence of the grievance. Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator held that the School District, by failing to raise Moran's untimely filing of the grievance at the first three steps of the procedure, had waived its right to pursue this claim. The arbitrator further found that the board's determination that Mr. Perrin was more qualified was not supported by the evidence. Finding both Moran and Perrin equally qualified, the arbitrator sustained Moran's grievance on the basis of Moran's seniority. *284 The Commonwealth Court reversed, and in its opinion stated: The court, in effect, held that because the collective bargaining did not specifically provide for the procedural question involved, the arbitrator's decision on the procedural question was reversible error. We do not agree.[1] We stated in Kardon v. Portare, 466 Pa. 306, 310, 353 A.2d 368, 370 (1976): In the instant case, as in Kardon, we can find no limitation in the collective bargaining agreement which would prohibit an arbitrator from deciding procedural issues. As the final determination of the procedural issue is to be left to the arbitrator, we believe that Commonwealth Court erred in reversing the arbitrator. Order of Commonwealth Court is reversed and arbitrator's award reinstated. EAGEN, C.J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [1] Judicial review of the instant arbitration award is limited to those specifically defined instances listed in the Arbitration Act of 1927. Act of April 25, 1927, P.L. 381, No. 248, §§ 10, 11, 5 P.S. §§ 170, 171.