Case Name: PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPERS' ASSOCIATION (Trooper James BETANCOURT), Respondent
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1993-11-08
Citations: 159 Pa. Commw. 489
Docket Number: No. 980 C.D. 1991
Parties: PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPERS’ ASSOCIATION (Trooper James BETANCOURT), Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAIG, President Judge, and DOYLE, COLINS, PALLADINO, PELLEGRINI, FRIEDMAN and KELLEY, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 489–535

Head Matter:
633 A.2d 1278
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPERS’ ASSOCIATION (Trooper James BETANCOURT), Respondent.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted April 8, 1992.
Decided Nov. 8, 1993.
Joanna N. Reynolds, Asst. Counsel, for petitioner.
James L. McAneny, for respondent.
Before CRAIG, President Judge, and DOYLE, COLINS, PALLADINO, PELLEGRINI, FRIEDMAN and KELLEY, JJ.

Opinion:
PELLEGRINI, Judge.
The Pennsylvania State Police (State Police) appeal from an arbitration award sustaining the grievance of the Pennsylvania State Troopers' Association (Union) and Trooper James Be tancourt and holding that Trooper Betancourt did not engage in "Unbecoming Conduct."
On February 24, 1988, Trooper Betancourt was on duty in the "Warrants and OR Section" at Troop "K" Headquarters. In the early afternoon hours, Trooper Betancourt was engaged in a jovial conversation with Trooper Francine Taggart while working in the office. At some point during the conversation, following a quip by Trooper Taggart that Trooper Betancourt would be a "half-man luge team" in reference to the Winter Olympic sport, Trooper Betancourt turned away and exposed his penis. Although there were eight other troopers present in the office, including Trooper Taggart, this action was observed purportedly by only Trooper Carlton Watson, who happened to be behind Trooper Betancourt.
Information concerning this episode came to the attention of Sergeant John Lyle, "Warrants and OR Supervisor", who questioned Trooper Betancourt. After initially denying the allegations, Trooper Betancourt admitted he exposed himself in the office. Sergeant Lyle initiated a complaint with the Bureau of Professional Responsibility and placed Trooper Betancourt on restrictive duty for a period of two months, where he was required to scrub the office floors on his hands and knees. As a result of the complaint, Trooper Betancourt was charged with Unbecoming Conduct, a violation of Section 1-1.01 of the State Police Field Regulations (Field Regulations).
On March 30, 1989, court-martial proceedings were held before the State Police Court-Martial Board concerning the charge of Unbecoming Conduct. The Court-Martial Board then filed a report with the Commissioner, finding Trooper Betancourt guilty of Unbecoming Conduct and recommending a 30-day suspension without pay. On April 24, 1989, the Commissioner agreed with the Court-Martial Board's recommendations and found Trooper Betancourt guilty of Unbecoming Conduct and imposed a 30-day suspension. Pursuant to a newly adopted grievance procedure, Trooper Betancourt chose to grieve his suspension and hearings were held before an arbitrator.
On April 1, 1991, the arbitrator issued an award sustaining Trooper Betancourt's grievance, finding that the conduct did not fall within the definition of Unbecoming Conduct, because, while Trooper Betancourt exposed himself, it did not occur in public and some of his fellow officers condoned his behavior. The arbitrator also awarded Trooper Betancourt lost wages and benefits he suffered while on restrictive duty and suspension and directed that the incident be expunged from his personnel file. The State Police now appeal.
/.
We ordered reargument in this case because of the difficulty we are having with what standard of review to apply in reviewing grievance arbitration awards arising out of collec tive bargaining agreements negotiated or awarded pursuant to Act 111. We have previously held that the standard of review for appeal of Act 111 grievance arbitration is in the nature of "narrow certiorari". See City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 392, 565 A.2d 1232 (1989). Oftentimes, however, we lapse into essence test language in reviewing these awards with statements such as "we must limit our inquiry into [whether] the arbitrator's interpretation . derives its essence from the collective bargaining agreement between the FOP and the City." FOP Lodge No. 5 (Bojanowski) v. City of Philadelphia, 137 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 1, 5, 586 A.2d 459, 462 (1991).
The State Police ask us to revisit this area. While not disputing that the narrow certiorari standard is appropriate to review "interest arbitration" awards, it contends that it is inapplicable to grievance arbitration awards which should be reviewed under the standard set forth in Section 7302(d)(2) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(d)(2), the "essence test".
A
The "essence test" is the standard of review that is routinely applied in both the public and private sectors to review arbitration awards in grievance proceedings. It is used to review all awards under the Public Employe Relations Act, Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, as amended, 43 P.S. § 1101.101-1101.2301 (for other public "regular" and "special" employees, commonly referred to as Act 195). The "essence test", as originally formulated in our case law, was that an arbitration award would be upheld if the award "draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement." FOP Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 396, 565 A.2d at 1234 (citing Community College of Beaver County v. Community College of Beaver County, Society of the Faculty (PSEA/NEA), 473 Pa. 576, 375 A.2d 1267 (1977)). Stated more precisely, where the arbitrator's task has been to determine the parties' intention in drafting the collective bargaining agreement, then the arbitrator's award is based on a resolution of a factual dispute and "is to be respected by the judiciary if 'the interpretation can in any rational way be derived from the agreement, viewed in light of its language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties' intention . '." Leechburg Area School District v. Dale, 492 Pa. 515, 520, 424 A.2d 1309, 1312 (1981) (quoting Community College of Beaver County, 473 Pa. at 594, 375 A.2d at 1275 (additional citation omitted)). The essence test requires a determination of whether the. agreement encompasses the subject matter of the dispute. Leechburg, 492 Pa. at 520-21, 424 A.2d at 1312.
After enactment of the Uniform Arbitration Act in Pennsylvania in 1980 (UAA), significant nuances have been added to the essence test. The UAA provides that a reviewing court is permitted to modify or correct an award in an arbitration proceeding conducted under its auspices only where "the award is contrary to law and is such that had it been a verdict of a jury the court would have entered a different judgment or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict." 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(d)(2). Although this language introduces the judgment n.o.v./error of law concept into review of labor arbitration awards, the cases have continued to apply the "essence test" to grievance arbitration under Act 195, and have viewed the UAA's judgment n.o.v. scope of review and the "essence test" as essentially the same. FOP Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 396, 565 A.2d at 1235 (quoting Community College of Beaver County, 473 Pa. at 590, 375 A.2d at 1273 ("the 'n.o.v.' concept . is hardly a radical change, nor does it dictate that a much closer or different scrutiny of an arbitration award will be available than under the [essence test].")
B.
The other standard, narrow certiorari, a more limited standard, gives even greater deference to an arbitration award required in labor arbitration proceedings under Act 111. As developed in the "interest-arbitration" context, a court may review Act 111 arbitration awards in the nature of "narrow certiorari", limited to questions regarding: (1) the jurisdiction of the arbitrators; (2) the regularity of the proceedings; (3) an excess in exercise of the arbitrator's powers; and (4) deprivation of constitutional rights. See Washington Arbitration Case, 436 Pa. 168, 174, 259 A.2d 437, 441 (1969). Under this "narrow certiorari" standard of review, the courts give even greater deference to an arbitrator's award than is given in judicial review of Act 195 and other arbitration proceedings. See, e.g., FOP Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 401, 565 A.2d at 1237; City of Philadelphia v. FOP Lodge No. 5 (Young), 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 625, 558 A.2d 163 (1989); Allegheny County Police Ass'n. v. County of Allegheny, 100 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 327, 514 A.2d 964 (1986), appeal dismissed, 516 Pa. 17, 531 A.2d 1108 (1987).
C.
The result in a given "just cause for discipline" case can differ, depending upon whether a grievance arbitration award is reviewed under the "essence test"/UAA standards or in the nature of narrow certiorari. This difference is manifest in the "just cause for discipline" cases where an arbitrator determines a grievant committed the acts which led to imposition of discipline by the employer, but also finds that such acts do not constitute "just cause" for the discipline imposed and substitutes either some lesser punishment or none. A recurring issue in this situation is whether the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority in substituting a penalty or in overriding the employer's decision as to the appropriate discipline for the misconduct which the arbitrator found to have occurred.
In grievance arbitration under Act 195, application of the error of law/judgment n.o.v. standard of review (or the "essence test") frequently results in reversing the arbitrator's determination of no just cause for discipline for imposing his or her own "brand of industrial justice", and going beyond the intention of the parties. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266, 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (award-was not rationally derived from CBA where arbitrator found grievant guilty of theft and other crimes against the employer, but considered other factors in mitigation in determining that there was no "just cause" for his discharge and substituted a lesser penalty); County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380, 548 A.2d 1194 (1988) (award was not rationally derived from CBA which clearly retained employer's right to determine appropriate punishment for serious misconduct, and arbitrator found grievants to have engaged in charged abusive conduct to an inmate of the prison, including assaultive behavior, but arbitrator considered certain mitigating factors to find no "just cause" for dismissal and substituted a lesser penalty); Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers, 500 Pa. 213, 455 A.2d 625 (1983) (award was not rationally derived from CBA where arbitrator found grievant had committed crime of fraud against one of employer's tenants, but found no "just cause" for dismissal and substituted a lesser penalty); Manheim Central Education Ass'n. v. Mankeim Central School District, 132 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 94, 572 A.2d 31, petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 661, 582 A.2d 326 (1990) (award was not rationally derived from CBA where arbitrator found charged immoral conduct of grievant to have occurred, but found no "just cause" for dismissal and substituted a lesser penalty).
On the other hand, the greater judicial deference owed an arbitrator under the narrow certiorari standard usually will result in upholding such an award. As long as the proceedings were regular, violates no constitutional rights, and the arbitrator had authority over the matter, the award will be upheld. This type of review mainly looks to see if basic due process principles were followed. If they have been, we will not interfere, even if the arbitrator's award is not derived from the agreement.
In this context, we have reviewed awards for "excess in exercise of the arbitrators' powers" and have upheld the arbitrators' finding of no "just cause" for dismissal, even though the arbitrators found that the charged misconduct had occurred. See, e.g., FOP Lodge No. 5 (Young), 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 630, 558 A.2d at 164-65 (arbitrator did not exceed his authority in finding no "just cause", although grievant had committed the charged assaultive behavior); FOP Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 399-401, 565 A.2d at 1235-37 (arbitrator did not exceed his authority in ruling that although grievants had committed the charged unbecoming conduct in failing to cooperate with an internal investigation, such conduct did not provide "just cause" for dismissal).
Under that standard, where an arbitrator finds the charged misconduct to have occurred but determines such misconduct did not constitute "just cause" for dismissal or discipline and substitutes a lesser penalty or no discipline, such a "definition or standard of 'just cause' amounts to, at most, a mere error of law." FOP Lodge No. 5 (Young), 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 630, 558 A.2d at 165. Such action, "while perhaps an error of law, and therefore, subject to judicial review and reversal under the UAA, is beyond this court's power to correct because of our limited scope of review where the standard is narrow certiorari." FOP Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 398, 565 A.2d at 1236. A determination that no penalty is justified, even if such conduct was criminal or a breach of fiduciary, is not an act in excess of the arbitrator's authority which would warrant reversal under the narrow certiorari standard. Id. at 401, 565 A.2d at 1237. Under a narrow certiorari standard of review, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would have reversed the arbitrator's decision in Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Philadelphia Housing Authority or County of Centre. Cf. Manheim Central, 132 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 103, 572 A.2d at 36 ("it is not unusual for a result to be upheld in an Act 111 case that would not be permitted under Act 195.")
II.
To determine what standard is appropriate, we must first examine whether Act 111 is applicable to the grievance arbitration procedure. Prior to the enactment of Act 111, labor disputes between police, firefighters and other public employees were settled under an arbitration procedure provided for in the Act of June 30, 1947, P.L. 1183, as amended, 43 P.S. § 215.1. However, in Erie Firefighters Local No. 239 v. Gardner, 406 Pa. 395, 178 A.2d 691 (1962), our Supreme Court held that if this Act required a municipality to be bound by the findings of an arbitration panel, such a requirement would be unconstitutional because it would attempt to delegate a nondelegatable function under Article III, Section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See also Harney v. Russo, 435 Pa. 183, 255 A.2d 560 (1969).
At the time of the decision in Erie Firefighters, Section 20, which was subsequently renumbered as Section 31, provided that "[t]he General Assembly shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association, any power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property or effects, whether held in trust or otherwise, or to levy taxes or perform any municipal function whatever." Pa.Const. Art. Ill, former § 20.
In a response to the Erie Firefighters case, an amendment to Article III, Section 31 was presented to and passed by the electorate. Harney. As a result, a second sentence was added, providing in relevant part that:
Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation, or any other provision of the Constitution, the General Assembly may enact laws which provide that the findings of panels or commissions, selected and acting in accordance with law for the adjustment or settlement of grievances or disputes or for collective bargaining between policemen and firemen and their public employers shall be binding upon all paities .
Pa. Const. Art. Ill, § 31. (Emphasis added).
While the amendment to Article III, Section 31, gave the General Assembly broad powers to implement an overall scheme of collective bargaining such as that contained in Act 195, it chose not to do so. In enacting Act 111, the General Assembly chose only to establish a procedure by which a contract was negotiated and, absent agreement, disputed terms were resolved. Township of Moon v. Police Officers of Township of Moon, 508 Pa. 495, 498 A.2d 1305 (1985). Act 111 gives police and fire personnel employed by the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions the right to bargain collectively over "terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions, and other benefits ." It provides "interest arbitration" where an impasse was reached between the parties through the creation of a three-member arbitration board. Sections 1 through 8 of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.1-217.8; see Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. 501, 526 A.2d 315 (1987). The limited nature of Act 111 is not surprising, considering its historical background, as well as that at the time of its passage, collective bargaining by other public employees was not permitted.
In regard to the reviewability of an interest arbitration panel's decision, Section 7 of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.7, provides in relevant part:
The determination of the majority of the board of arbitration thus established shall be final on the issue or issues in dispute and shall be binding upon the public employer and the policemen or firemen involved. Such determination shall be in writing and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to both parties to the dispute. No appeal therefrom shall be allowed to any court. Such determination shall constitute a mandate to the head of the political subdivision which is the employer, or to the appropriate officer of the Commonwealth if the Commonwealth is the employer, with respect to matters which can be remedied by administrative action, and to the lawmaking body of such political subdivision or of the Commonwealth with respect to matters which require legislative action, to take the action necessary to carry out the determination of the board of arbitration. (Emphasis added).
Even though Section 7 specifically states that "[n]o appeal . shall be allowed to any court" and, therefore, does not provide a standard of review, in Washington Arbitration Case, supra, our Supreme Court determined that appeals from an arbitration panel's decision could be taken pursuant to Rule 68/é of the Supreme Court Rules. That rule sets forth what is commonly known as the "certiorari" standard of review. The Supreme Court, in Washington, stated:
We have decided to grant the city's petition under Rule 68/é. The parameters of the review permissible under that rule are as follows:
"If an appeal is prohibited by an Act, or the decision of the Agency is stated to be final or conclusive, the law is well settled that an appeal will lie to the Courts in the nature of a narrow certiorari and this Court will review only (1) the question of jurisdiction; (2) the regularity of the proceedings before the Agency; (3) questions of excess in exercise of powers; and (4) constitutional questions: Cf. Devito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 172 A.2d 161 [ (1961) ] (and cases cited therein); Dauphin Deposit Trust Company v. Myers, 401 Pa. 230, 164 A.2d 86 [(I960)]."
436 Pa. at 173-74, 259 A.2d at 440-41.
Because of the origin of Act 111, the courts of this Commonwealth specifically held that it would be illegal to include such a grievance arbitration provision in an Act 111 police or fire collective bargaining agreement. In Allegheny Firefighters, Local 1038 v. Allegheny County, 7 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 81, 88-89, 299 A.2d 60, 63 (1973), we expressly held that Act 111 gave an arbitration panel no jurisdiction to order grievance arbitration for disputes arising out of a police or fire collective bargaining agreement when we stated:
Mindful of the admonition of the Supreme Court in Washington, supra, that legitimate issues in the context of a private sector labor dispute may not be legitimate in the context of a public sector labor dispute because public employees are in many respects more limited in what they may do vis-a-vis their employees, the lower court in this case concluded that the Act cannot be construed to include a grievance procedure for settlement of currently unidentifiable disputes as a proper subject for collective bargaining 'concerning teims and conditions of employment.' The grievance procedure in the arbitration award in question was thus held to be beyond the authority of the arbitrators to make. In reaching this conclusion, the lower court relied in part upon a comparison of provisions of Act No. Ill and the more recently enacted Public Employe Relations Act of July 21, 1970, P.L. 563, 43 P.S. § 1101.101, which specifically includes union security and a grievance procedure as proper subjects of collective bargaining, thus indicating a contrary legislative intent with respect to Act No. 111.
We agree ivith the conclusion reached by the lower court. We would add that assuming some form of grievance proce dure might properly be the subject of collective bargaining under Act No. Ill, a grievance procedure such as the one here in question which provides for ultimate binding arbitration of disputes unresolved by prior steps in the procedure is a clear second delegation of authority to a non-governmental body by the first non-governmental authority (the original arbitration panel) whose authority to perfonn a governmental act is recognized as an exception to non-delegation by the limited provisions of Ariicle III, Section 31, of our present Constitution. Such a second delegation poses a serious constitutional issue, which has not been raised and which we do not now decide. (Emphasis added).
See Township of Moon, 508 Pa. 495, 498 A.2d 1305 (1985); Cheltenham Township v. Cheltenham Police Department, 8 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 360, 301 A.2d 430 (1973). See also John D. Thrush, A Survey of Public Sector Collective Bargaining in Pennsylvania, 83 Dick.L.Rev. 755, 772, n. 137 (1979).
At this point in the analysis, it is apparent that:
• Act 111 does not contain any language authorizing grievance arbitration;
• for an Act 111 interest arbitration panel without jurisdiction to include such a provision in a police or fire collective bargaining agreement was illegal;
• the narrow certiorari standard was created by the Supreme Court to review interest arbitration awards only.
III.
Because Act 111 does not provide for grievance arbitration, grievance arbitration provisions were not negotiated nor awarded by arbitrators for inclusion in collective bargaining agreements. That changed with the passage of the UAA by the General Assembly and our Supreme Court's decision in Township of Moon, 508 Pa. 495, 498 A.2d 1305 (1985).
In 1980, the General Assembly enacted the UAA which established uniform arbitration procedures regarding "collective bargaining agreements] to arbitrate controversies between employers and employees; and those arising out of government contracts." In Township of Moon, our Supreme Court was dealing with a dispute involving the propriety of an interest arbitration panel's inclusion in its award of a procedure for binding grievance arbitration. Reviewing the interest arbitration award under the narrow certiorari standard set forth in Washington, it held that Act 111 did not foreclose an arbitration panel's power to establish procedures for the grievance arbitration. It found that such a procedure could be legally imposed, not under Act 111, but under the provisions of the UAA. It did so because if "the parties could have voluntarily agreed to a grievance procedure in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act", then it certainly followed that an arbitration panel also had the authority. Id. at 509, 498 A.2d at 1312. In Township of Moon, our Supreme Court again reiterated that Section 4 of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.4, which sets forth procedures for interest arbitration, relates only to a "contract negotiation impasse and not to an alleged grievance." Id.
Our Supreme Court held that the UAA was the source by which an arbitration panel could order a grievance arbitration procedure. Again, in Appeal of Upper Providence Township, our Supreme Court, while reaffirming the narrow certiorari standard of review from interest arbitration disputes arising under Act 111 as enunciated in Washington, alluded in footnote 3 to Township of Moon and stated that:
While we did not specifically address the issue of whether the UAA superseded or modified the scope of review under Act 111, this court has recently had the occasion to consider the two statutes. In Township of Moon, this court reviewed an arbitration award that established a binding grievance arbitration procedure in conformity with the [UAA], and we held that the arbitrators could legitimately establish such a procedure. The majority reasoned that although Act 111 did not establish a binding grievance arbitration mecha- nism (as opposed to "interest" impasse arbitration), neither did it expressly preclude adoption of such mechanism, and thus, the grievance arbitration procedure awarded by the arbitrators was within their authority and was affirmed. The arbitration mechanism provided in the [UAA] was not inconsistent, for grievance arbitration purposes, with Act 111. The standard of review applied in Township of Moon on the issue of whether the arbitrator's award was within their powers and authority, however, was not that contained in the [UAA] but was, rather, the now-traditional Act 111 standard of review adopted in City of Washington.
Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. at 512, n. 3., 526 A.2d at 320, n. 3. (Citation omitted) (Emphasis added).
Because case law specifically holds that the UAA is the source of the authorization for the inclusion of grievance arbitration in police and fire collective bargaining agreements, the standard of review that should be used in reviewing grievance arbitration awards is the one specifically set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(d) commonly known as the "essence test." It provides:
(1) Paragraph (2) shall be applicable where:
(i) The Commonwealth government submits a controversy to arbitration;
(ii) A political subdivision submits a controversy with an employee or a representative of employees to arbitration;
(iii) Any person has been required by law to submit or to agree to submit a controversy to arbitration pursuant to this subchapter.
(2) Where this paragraph is applicable, a court, in reviewing an arbitration award pursuant to this subchapter, shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, modify or correct the award where the award is contrary to law and is such that had it been a verdict of a jury, the court would have entered a different judgment or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
In the present case, the Agreement between the State Police, a Commonwealth agency, and the Union provides for grievance arbitration. Consequently, the Agreement should fall within the scope of the UAA as provided by Section 7302(d). If the Agreement is covered under the UAA's statutory arbitration procedures, Section 7302(d) then applies. This section provides that where a "person has been required by law to submit . a controversy to arbitration pursuant to this subchapter; . a court in reviewing . [the] . . award . . shall modify or correct the award where the award is contrary to law and is such that had it been a verdict of a jury, the court would have entered a different judgment or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict." 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(d)(1) and (2). As stated by the Supreme Court in County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380, 548 A.2d 1194 (1988), this scope of review is akin to the "essence test."
After examining the provisions of Act 111, the UAA, the case law, and the negotiated collective bargaining agreement, we hold that the source of the authorization for police and fire grievance arbitration is the Uniform Arbitration Act, and, accordingly, the standard for review is the one provided for in 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(d), the essence test.
IV.
Now that we have determined the proper scope of review, we must now determine whether the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the agreement.
The State Police contend that the arbitrator's award does not draw its essence from the agreement because the arbitrator found that Trooper Betancourt committed the alleged conduct, but that it did not amount to Unbecoming Conduct as defined by the Field Regulations. The State Police argue that the arbitrator, in this instance, is bound by the Commissioner's interpretation of Unbecoming Conduct.
In his award, the arbitrator found that Trooper Betancourt did, in fact, expose himself in the office; Using testimony from another trooper at the scene, the arbitrator described what happened as follows:
On that particular afternoon I observed Trooper Betancourt engaged in conversation with Trooper [Francine] Taggart in the office . They were engaged in dialogue at which time Trooper Betancourt reveals himself............ He revealed himself, exposed his penis .
He was engaged in conversation with Trooper Taggart at which time he told her to sit on his penis and peddle his testicles using colloquy term [sic] .
At which 'time she replied. I didn't hear her reply, at which time he exposed himself. (Spacings in original).
Despite finding that Trooper Betancourt exposed his penis, the arbitrator set aside the 30-day suspension imposed by the State Police, awarded all lost wages and benefits, including overtime and night-shift differential payments, and ordered that the incident should be stricken from his record.
The arbitrator arrived at this decision by finding that any reasonable person would conclude that such conduct does not squarely fit within the definition of Unbecoming Conduct since there was no public exposure of his "misadventures" and most but not all of his fellow officers condoned the behavior. The arbitrator's finding that the conduct of Trooper Betancourt was not unbecoming fails to draw its essence from the agreement.
Trooper Betancourt was charged with Unbecoming Conduct as defined by Field Regulation 1.01 which provides that:
A member shall not conduct himself/herself in a manner which is unbecoming to a police officer. Unbecoming conduct is that type of conduct which could reasonably be expected to destroy public respect for state police officers and/or confidence in the Pennsylvania State Police. (Emphasis added).
A charge of Unbecoming Conduct under Field Regulation 1-1.01 is clearly an offense which is subject to discipline and possible suspension. See Soja v. Pennsylvania State Police, 500 Pa. 188, 455 A.2d 613 (1982); McFadden v. Pennsylvania State Police, 115 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 635, 540 A.2d 1009 (1988), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 522 Pa. 580, 559 A.2d 40 (1989).
Unbecoming Conduct has consistently been defined as any conduct "tending to destroy public respect" and confidence in the operation of services or affecting the morale or efficiency of the police department. Zeber Appeal, 398 Pa. 35, 43, 156 A.2d 821, 825 (1959) (emphasis added); See also Civil Service Commission of City of Philadelphia v. Wojtusik, 106 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 214, 525 A.2d 1255 (1987); Wallace Appeal, 90 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 539, 496 A.2d 102 (1985).
Once finding that the conduct took place, the arbitrator's finding that Trooper Betancourt's conduct in exposing himself did not constitute Unbecoming Conduct does not draw its essence from the agreement. Not only would the conduct of Trooper Betancourt cause affront to the general public, it may also be the subject to the criminal charge of Indecent Exposure. As such, the conduct is clearly within the definition of Unbecoming Conduct.
Accordingly, we reverse the arbitrator's award and reinstate the 30-day suspension imposed by the Commissioner.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of November, 1993, the arbitrator's award dated April 1, 1991, is reversed and the 30-day suspension issued by the Commissioner is reinstated.
. This opinion was reassigned to the author on May 11, 1993.
. See Section 5 of Article XXXVIII of the 1990-1992 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the State Police and the Union, which allows a police officer charged with an offense subject to court-martial to elect either court-martial or grievance arbitration. (R.R. 3a). The present case is unusual in that Trooper Betancourt received both a court-martial and grievance arbitration.
The reason for this unusual circumstance is that prior to the charge of Unbecoming Conduct being brought against Trooper Betancourt, a decision of this court held that the provision allowing an officer to elect grievance arbitration as an option to court-martial proceedings contravened the statutory scheme under Section 711 of The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. § 251, which outlines the court-martial procedures and the powers of the Commissioner. This decision was subsequently reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after Trooper Betancourt already was given his suspension by the Commissioner. See Commonwealth v. State Conference of State Police Lodges of the Fraternal Order of Police (McCommons), 117 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 564, 546 A.2d 697 (1988), reversed, 525 Pa. 40, 575 A.2d 94 (1990).
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the State Police and the Union agreed that anyone who was subject to court-martial during this time period may elect to grieve the Commissioner's decision, which is what Trooper Betancourt did.
. We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 763(b), which provides: "The Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all petitions for review of an award of arbitrators appointed in conformity with statute to arbitrate a dispute between the Commonwealth and an employee of the Commonwealth."
. Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. § 217.1-217.10. Act 111 applies only to police and fire personnel.
. See FOP Lodge No. 5 (Christy) v. City of Philadelphia, 120 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 610, 549 A.2d 1014 (1988); City of Philadelphia v. FOP Lodge No. 5 (Adams), 114 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 96, 538 A.2d 131 (1988); City of Carbondale v. FOP Lodge 63 (Barbaro), 109 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 325, 531 A.2d 76 (1987).
. Interest arbitration is the name given to the procedure that is used when parties are unable to arrive at a collective bargaining agreement. Geriot v. Council of Borough of Darby, 491 Pa. 63, 69, n. 6, 417 A.2d 1144, 1147, n. 6 (1980).
. The essence test derives from federal decisions which mandate judicial deference to an arbitrator's findings. Leechburg, 492 Pa. at 520, 424 A.2d at 1312. The United States Supreme Court, in frequently quoted language, has held:
[A]n arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. He may, of course, look for guidance from many sources, yet his award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. When the arbitrator's words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award.
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960) quoted in FOP Lodge No. 5 (Wilson), 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 396, 565 A.2d at 1234-35. (Emphasis added).
. 42 Pa.C.S. § 7301-7320.
. See note 6.
. Rule 68J4, which the Supreme Court used to establish the narrow certiorari rule for interest arbitration, no longer exists. Rule 68'¡i was repealed on or about July 1, 1972. No comparable rule presently exists in the Pennsylvania Appellate Rules.
. "Grievance procedure" is not a proper matter for collective bargaining under Act 111. Cheltenham, 8 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 364, 301 A.2d at 433.
. 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(b) provides:
This subchapter shall apply to a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate controversies between employers and employees or their respective representatives only where the arbitration pursuant to this subchapter is consistent with any statute regulating labor and management relations.
. Until the enactment of the Uniform Arbitration Act in 1980, a governmental body was without authority to enter into a grievance arbitration procedure; once it had the power to do so, so does an arbitration panel. See Chirico v. Board of Supervisors of Newton Township, 504 Pa. 71, 470 A.2d 470 (1983).
. When our Supreme Court found that the UAA authorizes grievance arbitration, it was in accord with its goal to provide a fuller relationship to police and fire collective bargaining by bringing it into the mainstream of labor relations law. In Philadelphia Fire Officers Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 470 Pa. 550, 369 A.2d 259 (1977), our Supreme Court held that Act 111 should be read in pari materia with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA), Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, as amended, 43 P.S. § 211.1-211.13, for the purpose of providing a procedure for conducting representation elec lions for firefighters. The Supreme Court held that Section 1932 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1932, required that the two statutes be read together, because while representative elections were proper under Act 111, specific procedures governing such procedures were lacking. Id. at 555, 369 A.2d at 261; see also Borough of Nazareth v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 534 Pa. 11, 626 A.2d 493 (1993). The Supreme Court instructed the parties to refer to the PLRA for such procedures because they are consistent with the intent of Act 111. See also Kurt H. Decker, The PLRB's New Jurisdiction for Police and Firemen, 16 Duq.L.Rev. 185 (1977-78).
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3127.
. Section 5 of Article XXXVIII of the collective bargaining agreement requires the arbitrator to confirm his or her award to the precise issue prescribed which, in this case, was "Did the State Police have just cause to discipline the grievant for his asserted violation of Field Regulation 1.01 Unbecoming'Conduct; if not, what shall the remedy be?" (Emphasis added). The penalty was to be considered by the arbitrator only if he found that Trooper Betancourt did not commit Unbecoming Conduct. See Manheim, 132 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 104, 572 A.2d at 36. Because we have found that the arbitrator should have found that Trooper Betancourt was guilty of Unbecoming Conduct, the arbitrator is required to impose the 30-day suspension.