IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania State System :

of Higher Education, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2242 C.D. 2013

: Argued: June 16, 2014

Association of Pennsylvania State :

College and University Faculties, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

OPINION 

BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: August 14, 2014

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Kutztown

University, petitions for review of an arbitration award holding that the University

violated a collective bargaining agreement by assigning librarians the duty of 

providing academic advice to students. University asserts that the Arbitrator 

impermissibly relied on past practices, improperly inserted new terms into the 

collective bargaining agreement and disregarded its managerial rights. We affirm.

University is one of 14 public universities operated by the 

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (State System). The Association 

of Pennsylvania State College & University Facilities (Union) is the collective 

bargaining representative for all of the universities that comprise the State System. 

The State System has negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements that 
2

span several decades, and each agreement covers all the public universities in the 

State System.

University employs ten full-time librarians, who are treated as faculty 

under the relevant collective bargaining agreement for 2007-2011 (CBA). In 2010, 

University closed its academic advising center for financial reasons. In 2011, 

University sought to replace the function of the closed center by assigning 60 

students to each librarian for academic advising. It did so with the proviso that 

academic advising would fall within the librarian’s 35-hour work week set forth in 

the CBA. Union filed a grievance to challenge this assignment. At the hearing, 

the parties stipulated that the issue before the Arbitrator was whether University

“violate[d] the [CBA] by assigning librarians to academic advising duties.” 

Reproduced Record at 5a (R.R. __). 

Ruth Perkins, a librarian and 15-year Union representative, testified. 

She explained that the CBA governed both teaching faculty and non-teaching

faculty, such as librarians, at University. Article 23 of the CBA assigned duties to 

“administrative faculty” and to “academic faculty.” CBA, Article 23; R.R. 256a, 

259a. Academic faculty includes both “teaching faculty”1and “library faculty,”

2

 

1

 Article 23.A.1.a-g of the CBA establishes the workload for the teaching faculty. Generally, 

teaching faculty members are not to exceed 24 workload hours per week. Also, no more than 3

preparations per academic term are to be assigned. An additional preparation may be assigned if 

overload pay is provided. Further, teaching faculty members are to maintain a minimum of 5 

office hours per week on no fewer than 3 different days. Separate instructions for teaching 

graduate classes, supervising student interns, and supervising student teachers are provided. 

2 Article 23.A.2.a-d of the CBA establishes the workload for the library faculty, as follows:

a. Subject to the provisions hereof, all members of the professional library staff 

shall enjoy full FACULTY status with all the rights, privileges and 

responsibilities pertaining thereto. For administrative purposes, the 

professional librarians shall constitute a department.

(Footnote continued on the next page . . . )
3

and each have different “workload and workload equivalents.” R.R. 256a-59a. 

Because the teaching faculty must have office hours, their weekly workload must

not exceed 24 hours, unless they are given “overload” pay. R.R. 256a. Librarians 

do not keep office hours, and they do not have the opportunity for overload pay. 

Likewise, teaching faculty have duties involving internships and the supervision of 

student teachers, which librarians do not share. 

Article 4 of the CBA addresses the duties of faculty members.3 

Article 4.A emphasizes that the “universal responsibility of the teaching 

 

(continued . . . )

b. Library FACULTY in the performance of their duties shall be scheduled for 

no more than thirty-five (35) hours per week, and Library FACULTY also 

shall be expected, as are other FACULTY MEMBERS, to assume committee 

assignments and other campus responsibilities. 

c. A Library FACULTY MEMBER’S schedule shall be based on library needs 

as determined by the President or his/her designee in consultation with 

members of the Library FACULTY.

d. [election of chairperson].

CBA, Article 23.A.2.a-d; R.R. 258a-59a.

3

It provides:

A. The concept of academic freedom must be accompanied by an equally 

demanding concept of academic responsibility. The concern of the 

UNIVERSITIES and its members for academic freedom safeguards must extend 

equally to requiring responsible service, consistent with the objectives of the 

UNIVERSITIES. The universal responsibility of the teaching FACULTY 

MEMBER is effective teaching. 

B. A proper academic climate can be maintained only when members of the 

FACULTY meet their fundamental duties and responsibilities regularly. These 

duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to: reporting promptly, and 

in advance if possible, any changes in class hours or classrooms assigned; 

preparing for and meeting their assignments, which would include timely 

notification of the proper authority and making a reasonable effort to insure that 

assignments can be covered in case of absences; making a reasonable effort to 

notify students of any changes in class hours or classrooms assigned; keeping 

current in their academic disciplines through continuing scholarly activity; 

(Footnote continued on the next page . . . )
4

FACULTY MEMBER is effective teaching.” CBA, Article 4.A; R.R. 188a. 

Article 4.B then lists the specific duties of the teaching faculty, such as making 

classroom assignments; keeping office hours; and “advising students.” CBA, 

Article 4.B; R.R. 188a.

Perkins explained that Article 16 of the CBA4requires written job 

descriptions for those faculty members, such as librarians, who have

responsibilities that lie outside of the classroom and for faculty members with 

mixed workloads. These written job descriptions are used to evaluate these faculty 

 

(continued . . . )

keeping office hours in accordance with Article 23 WORKLOAD AND 

WORKLOAD EQUIVALENTS, and conferring with and advising students and 

advisees; evaluating fairly and reporting promptly student achievement; rendering 

service to the University which would include participating in group deliberations 

which contribute to the growth and development of the students and the 

UNIVERSITIES; and reporting promptly, and in advance if possible, absence 

from any assigned duty in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, SICK 

LEAVE....

CBA, Article 4.A-B; R.R. 188a (emphasis added). 

4 Article 16 is entitled “PROMOTIONS.” It provides in relevant part:

A. Qualifications and Categories for Evaluation

1. The minimum qualifications for ranks shall be as specified in 

the applicable laws.

2. In addition to the required minimum qualifications, categories 

for FACULTY promotions shall include, but not be limited to, the 

categories identified in Article 12, Section B., PERFORMANCE 

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF FACULTY.

3. Effective July 1, 2000, each University shall provide written 

job descriptions for all FACULTY MEMBERS whose basic 

responsibilities lie outside the classroom and for the nonclassroom 

responsibilities of FACULTY MEMBERS with mixed workloads. 

This official job description shall be the basis of the evaluation of 

these FACULTY MEMBERS in lieu of effective teaching....

CBA, Article 16.A.1-3; R.R. 220a.
5

members “in lieu of effective teaching,” the evaluation criterion for teaching 

faculty. CBA, Article 16; R.R. 220a. In this way, Article 16 highlights that

librarians do not perform the “effective teaching” duties set forth in Articles 4 and

23 of the CBA.

Perkins stated that Article 23 of the CBA limits librarians to a 35-hour 

work week and directs that a librarian’s schedule shall be based on “library needs.” 

Perkins maintained that a “library need” cannot be construed to include advising 

students on their academics.

In all the years Perkins worked at the library, no librarian had ever 

been assigned academic advising duties. When Perkins began employment at 

University, she went through an orientation for new faculty members. Perkins

signed up for the orientation session on how to advise students, and she was not 

allowed to attend. She was informed that as a librarian, she could not provide 

academic advice to students.

In 2001, University asked for volunteers to teach a studies class. 

Perkins volunteered and taught the class. In every other studies class, the teacher 

was also the advisor to the students. Perkins was not permitted to be an advisor to 

the students in her class; rather, a teaching faculty member was assigned that 

position. Again, Perkins was advised that librarians could not advise.

On April 8, 2011, the librarians received notice from the University’s 

Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Dean of Library Services that,

beginning in the Fall 2011 semester, they would advise all incoming freshman 

students who had not declared a major. Accordingly, University assigned 

approximately 60 students to each librarian for that semester, for which it provided 

training. In addition, University revised the librarians’ job descriptions to include
6

student advising. Perkins explained that her job description from 2002 to 2011 had 

listed library duties and never mentioned academic advising. The 2012 job 

description listed the same library duties as prior years but added the new duty of 

providing academic advice to students without a declared major. 

Perkins testified that the librarians protested this assignment to Dr. 

Carlos Vargas, Provost and Vice-President for Academic Student Affairs. He 

conceded that these assignments might adversely affect the level of library 

services. However, he explained that the administration was willing to accept a 

reduction in library services as a trade-off for ensuring that students would receive 

assistance they needed in course and major selection. The librarians asked for 

additional staff or clerical support, but none was provided.5 Perkins also noted that 

at one point the library had 13 full-time librarians, but by 2010 that number had 

been reduced to ten. 

Perkins was critical of the training provided by University. The 

training materials were dense with information that the librarians were expected to 

learn on their own. Because the students were unsure of their major, course 

selection could not be based on a particular field of study. Reviewing a student 

file, preparing for an interview and documenting everything done took 

approximately one hour per student; e-mails and phone calls added another halfhour per student. Perkins testified that advising students has adversely impacted

library services. 

Vera Brancato, a professor emeritus at University, testified for Union. 

Prior to retirement, she had been the Chair of Academic Advising and Director of 

 

5

In additional to the 10 librarians, the library has 10 support staff personnel. 
7

the Advising Center. She stated that giving academic advice to students without a 

declared major is challenging. The process begins by helping students develop 

awareness of their strengths, their interests, their value system and their 

weaknesses. Only then can the advisor provide relevant advice on which courses

at University will fit the student’s interests and needs. Dr. Brancato worked at 

University for 27 years; never did librarians advise students. She opined that 

academic advising falls outside the competence of a librarian. National standards

provide that an academic advisor must be competent and have broad knowledge in

occupational and professional requirements, the college curriculum requirements

and what courses are necessary to a particular major. Librarians do not have this 

scope of knowledge.

Stephanie Steely, the University’s Coordinator of Technical Services 

and Collection Development, also testified. When the issue of academic advising 

arose in 2010, she surveyed the other 13 universities in the State System. She 

found that no other university required librarians to advise students, although some 

universities permitted it on a voluntary basis. At Millersville, each librarian

advised six or seven students a semester on a voluntary basis.

6

Dr. Vargas was the sole witness for University. He testified that the 

idea of assigning librarians to do academic advising first arose in 2008 at the 

suggestion of Ted Hickman, a librarian and Union representative. In 2010, it was 

again raised, and a number of librarians expressed support for the idea of advising 

students because it would increase the visibility and the role of librarians on 

campus. When the academic advising center closed in 2010, the librarians were 

 

6 Karen Wanamaker, the outreach librarian, testified regarding the many duties involved in 

operating the library. She contended that it was difficult to fit advising in with these duties.
8

assigned academic advising. Regarding the impact of this new assignment, Vargas 

felt that the librarians could best decide what library functions could be reduced to 

make time for advising students. He added that no librarian was ever scheduled to 

do advising work outside of the 35-hour work week.

Arbitration Award

The Arbitrator considered the long history of contract negotiation and 

application. Never had either party considered the CBA to authorize a university 

in the State System to assign librarians to academic advising. None of the other 

State System universities had ever assigned librarians the job of offering academic

advice. The Arbitrator concluded that such history may fairly be viewed as 

evidence of the parties’ understanding of the CBA. 

However, the Arbitrator went on to examine the CBA to see if it gave 

a right to management to assign librarians the duty of providing students academic 

advice. He found none. The Arbitrator explained that Article 4.A of the CBA 

stresses that the universal responsibility of the teaching faculty is “effective 

teaching,” and it makes one of the components of “effective teaching” to be

“conferring with and advising students and advisees.” CBA, Article 4.A-B; R.R. 

188a. The Arbitrator concluded that Article 4.B established that advising students 

is a contractual duty of the teaching faculty.

The Arbitrator rejected University’s argument that Article 12.B of the 

CBA, which addresses the quality of student advising, applies to all faculty 

members. Article 12.B.1 is entitled “Effective teaching and fulfillment of 

professional responsibilities.” The Arbitrator found the title itself established that 

Article 12.B was directed to the teaching faculty not the library faculty. 
9

Article 23.A.2.c states that the schedule of a librarian “shall be based 

on library needs as determined by the President or his/her designee in consultation 

with members of the Library FACULTY.” CBA, Article 23.A.2.c; R.R. 258a. 

University argued that it was a management prerogative to determine library needs, 

and it determined that a “library need” included advising students. The Arbitrator 

rejected this construction because the “need” arose when University closed the 

academic advising center, not the library. Even if management has the prerogative 

to determine library needs, this new assignment to librarians actually subverted the 

needs of the library, as acknowledged by University’s witness, Dr. Vargas. 

Based on these findings, the Arbitrator concluded that University

violated the CBA by assigning librarians the job of providing academic advice and 

directed University to cease and desist from making these assignments. The 

Arbitrator declined to award a monetary remedy, finding that University did not 

direct the librarians to work beyond the contract 35-hour per week maximum and, 

further, there was no evidence that any librarian did so.

Appeal

University then petitioned for this Court’s review. On appeal, 

University argues (1) that the Arbitrator’s award was unfaithful to the CBA 

because it relied on past practices as justification to disregard the managerial rights 

clause reserved in Article 10 of the CBA; (2) that the Arbitrator improperly 

inserted new and additional terms into the CBA as justification to disregard 

managerial rights; and (3) that the Arbitrator’s award violated a well-defined, 

dominant public policy of the Commonwealth.
10

Our scope and standard of review of an arbitrator’s award is narrow 

and deferential. When reviewing an arbitrator’s interpretation of a CBA, the 

proper scope of review is the deferential essence test:

The essence test is a two prong test under which an award 

should be upheld if (1) the issue as properly defined is within 

the terms of the [CBA] and (2) the arbitrator’s award can be 

rationally derived from the [CBA].

Coatesville Area School District v. Coatesville Area Teachers’ 

Association/Pennsylvania State Education Association, 978 A.2d 413, 415 n.2 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2009). In short, we do not review an arbitrator’s findings of fact on 

appeal, “and as long as he has arguably construed or applied the [CBA], an 

appellate court may not second-guess his findings of fact or interpretation.” Id. 

We may only vacate an award if “it is indisputably without foundation or fails to 

logically flow from the agreement.” Id. 

Analysis

In its first issue, University argues that the Arbitrator’s award is 

unfaithful to the CBA because it relies on past practices as justification to disregard 

the managerial rights reserved to University in Article 10 of the CBA. University

argues that this clause of the CBA gives it the authority to assign advising duties to 

the librarians. Article 10.A-C of the CBA sets forth the management rights clause: 

A. The STATE SYSTEM/UNIVERSITIES, at their sound 

discretion, possess the right, in accordance with applicable 

laws, to manage all operations including the direction of 

FACULTY and the right to plan, direct and control the 

operation of all facilities and property of the STATE SYSTEM, 

except as modified by this Agreement.

B. As provided by Act 195 (Section 702), matters of inherent 

managerial policy are reserved exclusively to the STATE 

SYSTEM/UNIVERSITIES. These “include but shall not be 
11

limited to such areas of discretion or policy as the functions and 

programs of the public employer (STATE SYSTEM/

UNIVERSITIES), standards of services, its overall budget, 

utilization of technology, the organizational structure and 

selection and direction of personnel.”

C. The listing of specific rights in this Article is not intended to 

be or should not be considered restrictive or a waiver of any of 

the rights of management not listed and not specifically 

surrendered herein, whether or not such rights have been 

exercised by the STATE SYSTEM/UNIVERSITIES in the 

past.

CBA, Article 10.A-C; R.R. 202a. University notes that Article 10 of the CBA 

incorporates Section 702 of the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA), 43 P.S. 

§1101.702,

7 which relieves public employers of the duty “to bargain over matters 

of inherent managerial policy.” Thus, it argues that the PERA and the CBA gave 

University the discretion to assign additional duties to its employees, including 

librarians. Further, it argues that “past practices” are not binding on a public 

employer unless that practice is subject to mandatory bargaining. University Brief 

at 29. 

Union counters that University is not obligated to bargain over issues 

of inherent managerial prerogative, but if it chooses to do so, it is bound by the 

 

7 Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §1101.702. It provides:

Public employers shall not be required to bargain over matters of inherent 

managerial policy, which shall include but shall not be limited to such areas of 

discretion or policy as the functions and programs of the public employer, 

standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology, the 

organizational structure and selection and direction of personnel. Public 

employers, however, shall be required to meet and discuss on policy matters 

affecting wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment as well as the 

impact thereon upon request by public employe representatives.

43 P.S. §1101.702 (emphasis added).
12

terms of the CBA. Here, University has limited its managerial prerogatives and is 

bound by the CBA, which separates the work duties of teaching faculty and 

librarians. Specifically, the workload of teaching faculty is set forth separately 

from that of librarians. See CBA, Article 23.A.1-2; R.R. 256a-59a. Article 4 of 

the CBA delineates the requirements of “effective teaching” to include advising 

students. CBA, Article 4; R.R. 188a. In short, the University has bound itself to 

make the assignment of academic advising solely to teaching faculty.

This Court has explained that the PERA does not obligate a public 

employer to negotiate matters of “inherent managerial policy.” Pennsylvania 

Turnpike Commission v. Teamsters Local Union No. 77, 87 A.3d 904, 910 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014). However, “if [a public employer] chooses to do so, absent 

contrary positive legislation, it is bound by the terms of a [CBA].” Id. (quoting 

Coatesville Area School District, 978 A.2d at 417). The Arbitrator determined that 

the CBA limited University from assigning the task of advising students to any of 

its employees other than teaching faculty. 

The Arbitrator’s award must be upheld if it is rationally derived from 

the CBA. The Arbitrator analyzed the CBA in its entirety. University’s past 

practices argument misses the point.

8

 The Arbitrator based his decision on the 

 

8

Evidence of a past practice cannot be used if it conflicts with the current language of the CBA. 

Department of Corrections v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, 38 A.3d 975 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). However, an arbitrator may use evidence of past practice as follows:

(1) to clarify ambiguous language; (2) to implement contract language which 

sets forth only a general rule; (3) to modify or amend apparently unambiguous 

language which has arguably been waived by the parties; and (4) to create or 

prove a separate, enforceable condition of employment which cannot be derived 

from the express language of the agreement.

Id. at 981 (quoting County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent 

Union, 381 A.2d 849, 852 (Pa. 1977)). Contrary to University’s claim that use of past practices 

(Footnote continued on the next page . . . )
13

language of the CBA, and his discussion of past practices simply confirmed his 

construction of the CBA. 

In its second issue, University argues that the Arbitrator’s award fails 

the essence test because he did not confine his decision to the plain language of the 

CBA and instead inserted new terms into it. University argues that the Arbitrator 

rewrote Article 4 of the CBA, which describes the job duties of “faculty” by 

inserting the word “teaching” before the word “faculty.” Union counters that the 

Arbitrator did not add words to the CBA; he interpreted it. Article 4.A states that 

the universal responsibility of the teaching faculty members “is effective 

teaching.” CBA, Article 4.A; R.R. 188a. Article 4.B then addresses the duty of 

“[a]dvising students.” CBA, Article 4.B; R.R. 188a. Article 4.B must be read 

together with Article 4.A, which relates only to “teaching faculty members.” 

CBA, Article 4.A-B; R.R. 188a. Further, the duty of advising students appears in a 

list of duties to report changes in class hours; office hours; and evaluation of

student achievement. These duties can only apply to teaching faculty. Further, the 

instruction to confer with and advise students is a function of the requirement to 

“keep office hours.” Since library faculty members are not required under the 

CBA to maintain office hours, it cannot apply to them. We agree with Union.

 

(continued . . . )

is impermissible, “reliance upon past practice in the face of an ambiguous contract provision is 

not only permissible, but is an important tool through which an arbitrator may discover the intent 

of the parties.” Danville Area School District v. Danville Area Education Association, 

PSEA/NEA, 754 A.2d 1255, 1262 (Pa. 2000). In arguing against the use of “past practices,” 

University cites to several decisions of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. As noted by 

Union, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board does not interpret CBAs. Instead, it determines 

matters relating to violations of the PERA. Thus, the cases cited by University are irrelevant to 

the review of an arbitration award, which is governed by the essence test. 
14

Notably, the Arbitrator’s interpretation of Article 4 is bolstered by 

Article 12.B of the CBA, which states as follows:

B. Categories for Performance Review and Evaluation

The following categories shall serve as the uniform systemwide basis for the evaluation of FACULTY MEMBERS at each 

University. The categories listed below shall be applied in the 

performance review and evaluation of temporary faculty, 

regular part-time faculty, probationary non-tenured faculty, 

tenured faculty and all applications for promotion. Under each 

category are listed some examples of data upon which 

judgments can be made of the FACULTY MEMBER’S 

performance relative to a given category. When evaluating the 

data, the appropriate evaluator(s) shall give greater weight to 

the quality of the performance reflected in the data, than to the 

quantity of the data.

1. Effective teaching and fulfillment of 

professional responsibilities.

a. This will be indicated, when 

applicable, by such items as:

student evaluations, peer evaluations,

quality of syllabi, classroom 

visitations, quality of student 

advisement, willingness to accept 

departmental work assignments, 

timely execution of work 

assignments, and any other data 

deemed appropriate and agreed to by 

the FACULTY and Administration at 

local meet and discuss.

***

c. For all FACULTY MEMBERS 

whose basic responsibilities lie 

outside the classroom, the duties and 

responsibilities of the position shall 

be the category instead of effective 

teaching.
15

CBA, Article 12.B.1; R.R. 206a (emphasis added). As does Article 4, Article 

12.B.1.a relates “student advisement” to “effective teaching” and is included with a 

list of duties that do not apply to librarians. Librarians represent the group of 

faculty members “whose basic responsibilities lie outside the classroom.” CBA, 

Article 12.B.1.c; R.R. 206a.

An arbitrator’s award must be sustained “if it is based on anything that 

can be gleaned as the ‘essence’ of the [CBA].” American Federation of State, 

County & Municipal Employees, District Council 84, AFL-CIO v. City of Beaver 

Falls, 459 A.2d 863, 865 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). An arbitrator cannot change the 

language of the CBA or add new provisions. Id. University’s argument that the 

Arbitrator did so here does not withstand close scrutiny. The Arbitrator cited a 

number of provisions in the CBA and offered a reasonable construction of them. It 

is not necessary that this Court agree with an arbitrator’s interpretation of a CBA

for it to be sustained. Coatesville Area School District, 978 A.2d at 415 n.2. 

Simply, University has not met its burden of proving the award does not draw its

essence from the CBA.

In its third issue, University argues that the Arbitrator’s award violates 

a well-defined, dominant public policy of the Commonwealth that public 

employers should have discretion over matters of inherent managerial policy, as

codified in Section 702 of the PERA, 43 P.S. §1101.702. University’s direction to 

the librarians to advise students is a discretionary managerial right. Therefore, the 

Arbitrator’s award violates the public policy exception to the essence test.

To establish the public policy exception to the essence test it must be 

shown that the public policy is “well-defined, dominant and ascertained by 

reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of 
16

supposed public interests.” Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland 

Intermediate Unit # 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel 

Association, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855, 866 (Pa. 2007). Further, an arbitrator’s 

award will violate public policy if it “poses an unacceptable risk that it will 

undermine the implicated policy and cause the public employer to breach its lawful 

obligations or public duty, given the particular circumstances at hand and the 

factual findings of the arbitrator.” City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No.

110, 25 A.3d 408, 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).9 

As stated above, a public employer is not statutorily required to 

negotiate matters of inherent managerial rights. Pennsylvania Turnpike 

Commission, 87 A.3d at 910. However, “if it chooses to do so, absent contrary 

positive legislation, it is bound by the terms of a [CBA].” Id. Herein, the 

Arbitrator determined that the CBA directed that the teaching faculty was given the 

task of advising students. Therefore, the task could not be given to the librarians. 

University does not claim that there is any “contrary positive legislation” that 

would prohibit this action. Therefore, the public policy exception has not been 

established and University is bound by the terms of the CBA.

Conclusion

We affirm the Arbitrator’s award because it is rationally derived from 

the CBA, flows from the essence of the CBA and does not violate public policy.

______________________________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

 

9 Whether the award violates public policy is a question of law; our standard of review is de novo

and the scope of review is plenary. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 87 A.3d at 911.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania State System :

of Higher Education, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2242 C.D. 2013

:

Association of Pennsylvania State :

College and University Faculties, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2014, the arbitrator’s award 

dated November 15, 2013, is AFFIRMED.

______________________________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge