Opinion ID: 2555590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect on the Award's specific provisions

Text: In light of the above analysis, it is evident that Paragraph 18 should not have been completely invalidated under narrow certiorari review. Rather, it should only have been deemed unenforceable to the extent it requires an illegal act. Cf. United Parcel Serv. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., Local Union No. 430, 55 F.3d 138, 142 (3d Cir.1995) (determining that a grievance arbitration award is enforceable only to the extent it does not exceed the arbitrator's authority by going beyond the scope of the parties' submissions); Washington Arbitration, 436 Pa. at 179, 259 A.2d at 443 (vacating the portion of an interest arbitration award requiring the employer to perform an illegal act, while leaving the rest of the award intact). Since Paragraph 18 contains several distinct subsections, moreover, it is appropriate to set forth our specific conclusions in this regard relative to each substantive provision of Paragraph 18. As to subsection (a), the Commonwealth, like the Commonwealth Court majority, is of the view that consulting with the employee in the selection of counsel and the paying of counsel fees amounts to defending the employee, which gives rise to a conflict of interest. We do not consider this to be an adequate basis on which to void subsection (a). First, the Commonwealth's objection predicated upon a possible conflict of interest cannot rest solely on the furnishing of legal fees, because its own regulations already permit fees to be advanced and/or reimbursed in criminal cases under some circumstances. See 4 Pa.Code § 39.1. To the degree the Commonwealth echoes the Commonwealth Court's assertion that paying legal fees and consulting on the selection of an attorney is tantamount to providing an attorney, Pa. State Corr. Officers Ass'n, 932 A.2d at 368, we note that, whether or not a conflict would arise if the Commonwealth actually defended the employee from criminal charges, subsection (a) only calls for it to consult in the selection of an attorney and then pay reasonable fees. Regardless of the Commonwealth's status as an adverse party, there is no indication that it must remain involved in the employee's defense once an attorney is selected. [22] Accordingly, as we do not agree that there is a conflict of interest, Paragraph 18(a) should only be deemed invalid to the degree it contravenes the particular requirements of the Commonwealth's regulationsin particular, Section 39.1 of Title 4 of the Pennsylvania Code. As noted, Paragraph 18(a) states, quite simply, that the Commonwealth must pay an employee's reasonable attorney's fees in any criminal action arising from the performance of the employee's duties. Section 39.1(a) addresses criminal cases that the Office of General Counsel deems frivolous, and requires reimbursement of all such fees, as well as advancement of the same limited only by the balance in the employee's retirement account. This provision is mandatory in the sense that it does not give the employer any discretion to decide whether or not to either advance or, ultimately, reimburse, the employee for reasonable counsel fees: the employer must advance fees up to the employee's retirement account balance, and may not advance fees beyond that amount; the employer also must reimburse the employee after-the-fact for any fees incurred that were not previously advanced. In light of these mandatory provisions, Paragraph 18(a) cannot be given effect to alter this scheme. Section 39.1(b), however, which addresses non-frivolous criminal cases, is of a somewhat different nature. While it does not authorize the General Counsel to pay attorney's fees as they become due, it does give her the discretion to reimburse those fees in the event that the employee's defense is ultimately successful. Hence, although Paragraph 18(a) cannot require contemporaneous payment of fees in these circumstances (as this is not authorized or permitted by the regulations), it can, in accordance with the analysis provided above, be implemented to require reimbursement of such fees where reimbursement would be permitted under Section 39.1(b) pursuant to an exercise of the employer's discretionthat is, where the employee's defense is successful. Of course, if the employee's defense is unsuccessful, Section 39.1(b) does not allow for payment or reimbursement of fees and, thus, Paragraph 18(a) cannot be given effect to require the same. [23] Subsections (b) and (c) require the Commonwealth to defend Union members who are sued civilly so long as the suit arises from the performance of the employee's duties, and to pay any resulting judgment if the employee acted within the scope and responsibility of his office. Here again, in many cases the General Counsel is already required to provide such defense and indemnificationspecifically, in cases of alleged negligence or other unintentional conduct, see 4 Pa.Code § 39.2, and in instances where it appears to the General Counsel that the defendant's conduct giving rise to the cause of action was within the scope of his employment and a good faith exercise of his authority, regardless of the nature of the allegations. Id. § 39.3(a). The only circumstance in which subsections (b) and (c) of Paragraph 18 may require an action at odds with the regulations arises when the General Counsel determines that the employee's conduct was a bad faith exercise of his authority, malicious or outside the scope of his employment. 4 Pa.Code § 39.3(b)(1). Even then, the General Counsel is permitted to provide the employee with a legal defense, see id., or reimburse the employee for fees and costs after a successful defense. See id. § 39.3(b)(2). Thus, the only instance in the civil arena where Paragraph 18 actually requires an action affirmatively forbidden by the regulations is reflected in subsection 18(c), which makes the Commonwealth responsible for judgments rendered against the member in job-related suits where the bargaining unit member has acted within the scope and responsibility of his/her office. [24] This conflicts with the regulations in any instance where the employee, although having acted within the scope and responsibility of his office for purposes of Paragraph 18, nevertheless acted in bad faith, maliciously, or outside the scope of employment for purposes of Section 39.3(b). Under such an occurrence, Paragraph 18(c)'s indemnification requirement is unenforceable due to the contrary regulation embodied in Section 39.3(b)(1). See 4 Pa.Code § 39.3(b)(1) (stating that the Commonwealth will not indemnify the defendant in such a scenario). As a final consideration, by promulgating substantive regulations having the force and effect of law, the employer in this casethe Commonwealthhas been given the power to, in effect, legislate regarding a category of benefits that we have determined to be bargainable terms and conditions of employment, as explained above. This raises a substantial question under PERA concerning the extent to which the Commonwealth should be permitted, ultimately, to utilize its rule-making authority as a shield against conflicting arbitration awards, when such awards are subjected to narrow-certiorari judicial review. Indeed, allowing the Commonwealth to do so arguably implicates Washington Arbitration's caveat that a public employer should not be permitted to hide behind self-imposed legal restrictions. Washington Arbitration, 436 Pa. at 177, 259 A.2d at 442. The Union recognizes that this question remains unresolved, see Brief for Union at 33, but it does not explore the matter substantively or provide any discussion concerning the proper limits of the contrary-to-law prong of narrow certiorari in these circumstances. Rather, its advocacy on this issue is limited to reinforcing its view that the regulations constitute mere policy statements. The Commonwealth, moreover, does not address the issue. Thus, we leave its ultimate determination for a future case or cases, and note only that, in this dispute, the restrictions on Paragraph 18's implementation, as detailed above, are not untoward, as they operate to withhold litigation protection in cases of egregious employee misconduct.