Case Name: FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FORT PITT LODGE NO. 1, Petitioner v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2018-03-13
Citations: 182 A.3d 444
Docket Number: No. 313 WAL 2017
Parties: FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FORT PITT LODGE NO. 1, Petitioner
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Respondent
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 182
Pages: 444–444

Head Matter:
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FORT PITT LODGE NO. 1, Petitioner
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Respondent
No. 313 WAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 13, 2018
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
1. Did the Commonwealth Court err when it erroneously concluded that the Act 111 Award did not deviate from the Act 47 Plan when the plan required a compensation package that was sufficiently competitive with those available to police officers in comparable political subdivisions, but the award failed to prove one?
2. Did the Commonwealth Court err when it erroneously concluded that the Act 111 Award did not deviate from the Act 47 Plan, and therefore never addressed the award's failure to determine if it (1) does not exceed the limits on expenditures set for the FOP Contract by the Act 47 Plan, (2) does not jeopardize the financial stability of the city, and (3) is consistent with the policy objectives set forth in Act 47 to relieve the financial distress of the city[?]
3. Did the Commonwealth Court err when it erroneously concluded that the Act 111 Award did not violate Section 252 of Act 47 despite the fact that the expenditure limits in the Act 47 Plan were arbitrary, capricious, and established in bad faith?