Case Name: Antoinette MILBERRY et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1976-04-07
Citations: 467 Pa. 79
Docket Number: No. 270
Parties: Antoinette MILBERRY et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant.
Judges: Before EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 467
Pages: 79–88

Head Matter:
354 A.2d 559
Antoinette MILBERRY et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
Argued Nov. 21, 1975.
Decided April 7, 1976.
Robert T. Lear, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Leonard M. Sagot, Randall J. Sommovilla, Philadelphia, for appellees.
Before EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROBERTS, Justice.
The question presented is whether a school district may agree in a collective bargaining agreement to arbi trate an unsatisfactory performance rating of a teacher. The court of common pleas held that it may do so. We agree and affirm.
The collective bargaining agreement between the Philadelphia Board of Education and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers establishes a comprehensive grievance procedure which terminates in arbitration. Article B-V, section 2f(ii) (hereinafter "the agreement") provides:
"The employee may invoke the grievance procedure if he believes that his rating is improper because of capriciousness, arbitrariness, unfairness, prejudice, failure to conform with prevailing practices for rating, or absence of factual support for such rating."
At the end of the 1973-74 school year, an unsatisfactory rating was filed against Antoinette Milberry, a tenured teacher. On July 3, 1974, Milberry and the union invoked the grievance procedures to challenge the rating. On July 8, 1974, the board informed Milberry that her dismissal was being sought on the ground of incompetency. When the board later refused to allow the grievance to proceed to arbitration, Milberry and the union initiated this action in equity. On January 17, 1975, the court of common pleas ordered the board to submit the grievance to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. This appeal followed.
The board maintains that sections 1122-32 and section 510 of the Public School Code grant the board sole au thority to make decisions concerning the rating and dismissal of a tenured teacher. Therefore, the board argues, the agreement is invalid under section 703 of the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) insofar as it provides for arbitration of a grievance concerning an unsatisfactory rating when the rating has become the subject of a dismissal proceeding. We do not agree.
In the closely related case of Board of Education v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, 464 Pa. 92, 346 A. 2d 35 (1975), this Court held that section 703 of the PERA does not prohibit a school district from agreeing to arbitrate the discharge of a nontenured teacher. Citing Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District, 461 Pa. 494, 337 A.2d 262 (1975), we held that section 703 does not prevent agreement to, or implementation of, a particular provision merely because the subject matter of that provision is covered by legislation. The statutory prohibition in the PERA applies only when the particular provision "would be in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with" a statutory directive. Section 703 must be considered in light of the PERA as a whole, which embodies a strong policy in favor of arbitrating disputes. Accordingly, we held in Philadelpia Federation of Teachers, supra, that the board is prohibited from delegating a particular function to the arbitrator only if the General Assembly has mandated that the function shall be discharged by the board alone.
The General Assembly has not mandated that review of unsatisfactory ratings be conducted only by the board. The Public School Code requires the school district to rate the performance of all teachers. Section 1123 of the Code S.specifies the manner in which the applicable standards and regulations are to be promulgated and indicates the persons who are permitted to do the rating. It does not specify procedures by which an unsatisfactory rating may be reviewed, nor does any other section of the Public School Code specifically cover this subject.
The agreement does not in any way affect the obligation of the board to rate teachers in conformance with section 1123. It does not define the standards or establish the practices by which teachers are to be rated by the school districts. The agreement provides only for an impartial review to determine whether the "rating is improper because of capriciousness, arbitrariness, unfairness, prejudice, failure to conform with prevailing practices for rating or absence of factual support for such rating." We conclude that the board is not precluded from agreeing to submit to arbitration a dispute concerning the propriety of an unsatisfactory rating.
The board contends, however, that even if the agreement does not constitute an invalid delegation of the board's authority to rate the performance of teachers, it does constitute an unlawful delegation of the board's authority to discharge tenured teachers when an unsatisfactory rating has become the subject of a dismissal proceeding. We disagree.
The General Assembly has granted certain procedural safeguards to any tenured teacher whom the board seeks to dismiss. The Public School Code provides that the tenured teacher has the right to a public hearing before the board, that two-thirds of the board members must vote for dismissal, and that the tenured teacher has the right to appeal an adverse decision to the Secretary of Education and eventually to the courts. The agreement neither modifies nor creates an alternative to that dismissal procedure; nor does it provide for a review of the dismissal of a tenured teacher. Its sole effect on the dismissal process is to allow an arbitrator to determine the propriety of an unsatisfactory rating. That determination would be binding should the rating be introduced into evidence at a subsequent dismissal hearing before the board. The requirements of the School Code have not been circumvented. All the parties have done is to accord the teacher a further procedural protection — the right to an impartial determination of an important evidentiary matter — which does not conflict with any mandate of the General Assembly.
Consequently, we conclude that section 703 of the PERA does not prevent implementation of Article B-V, section 2f(ii) of the agreement regardless of whether a dismissal proceeding had been instituted.
Motion to quash and motion to dismiss denied. Decree affirmed. Each party pay own costs.
JONES, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
POMEROY, J., filed a concurring opinion.
EAGEN, J., dissents.
. Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, art. II, § 202(4), 17 P.S. § 211.202(4) (Supp.1975).
The union's contention that the appeal should be quashed is without merit. The order was final notwithstanding the court's direction that the case be retained on the docket until the arbitration was completed and a copy of the arbitrator's decision presented to the court. Board of Educ. v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, 464 Pa. 95-96 n. 2, 346 A.2d 35, 37 n. 2 (1975).
. Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, art. XI, § 1122-32, as amended, 24 P.S. § 11-1122 to 11-1132 (Supp.1975); id., art. V, § 510, as amended, 24 P.S. § 5-510 (Supp.1975).
. That section provides:
"The parties to the collective bargaining process shall not effect or implement a provision in a collective bargaining agreement if the implementation of that provision would be in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with any statute or statutes enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the provisions of municipal home rul© charters ^
Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, art. VII, § 703, 43 P.S. § 1101.703 (Supp.1975).
. That section provides:
"In determining whether a professional employee shall be dismissed for incompetency, and in rating the services of a temporary professional employee, the professional employee or temporary professional employee shall be rated by an approved rating system which shall give due consideration to personality, preparation, technique, and pupil reaction, in accordance with standards and regulations for such scoring as defined by rating cards to be prepared by the Department of Public Instruction, and to be revised, from time to time, by the Department of Public Instruction with the cooperation and advice of a committee appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, including representation from district superintendents of schools, classroom teachers, school directors, school supervisors, and such other groups or interests as the Superintendent of Public Instruction may deem appropriate. Rating shall be done by or under the supervisions of the superintendent of schools or, if so directed by him, the same may be done by an assistant superintendent, a supervisor, or a principal, who has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee who is being rated: Provided, That no satisfactory rating shall be valid unless approved by the district superintendent."
Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, art. XI, § 1123, as amended, 24 P. S. § 11-1123 (Supp.1975).
. See the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, art. XI, § 1122-32, as amended, 24 P.S. § 11-1122 to 11-1132 (Supp. 1975).
. The board's practice of objecting to review by an arbitrator only when a dismissal proceeding has been instituted is untenable. Any determination by an arbitrator concerning the propriety of an unsatisfactory rating may have an effect on a subsequent dismissal proceeding. A first unsatisfactory rating is as relevant to a charge of incompetency as is a second unsatisfactory rating. Thus, we must consider the validity of the board's argument irrespective of the specific context in which a teacher seeks to invoke the agreement.