Case Name: CITY OF ALLENTOWN v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 302; International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302 v. City of Allentown. Petition of: International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2016-03-03
Citations: 157 A.3d 474
Docket Number: No. 682 MAL 2015
Parties: CITY OF ALLENTOWN v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 302 International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302 v. City of Allentown Petition of: International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302
Judges: Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 474–474

Head Matter:
CITY OF ALLENTOWN v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 302 International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302 v. City of Allentown Petition of: International Association of Fire Fighters Local 302
No. 682 MAL 2015
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 3, 2016

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:
(1) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred when it reversed the trial court and held that an Act 111 arbitration award that set a minimum number of firefighters on duty per shift should be vacated because the number of firefighters on duty per shift, which is rationally related to the terms and conditions of employment of the firefighters since it is a safety issue, unduly infringes upon the exercise of an employer's managerial responsibilities?
(2) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred when it reversed the trial court and held that an Act 111 arbitration award that set a minimum number of firefighters on duty per shift should be vacated because the number of firefighters on duty per shift unduly infringes upon the exercise of an employer's managerial responsibilities when there was no evidence of any undue infringement presented to the Act 111 panel?
Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.