Court Opinion

ID: 9646792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:11:19.764065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:41.904240
License: Public Domain

KAUFFMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority expressly recognizes (1) that “the arbitrator held that . . . the written provisions of the collective bargaining agreement precluded Bortz from receiving overtime compensation,” (p. 988) (Emphasis supplied), and (2) that the arbitrator’s award was based solely on his finding of sufficient detrimental reliance upon a subsequent promise of the college administration to justify application of Section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts. (P. 988). I therefore must express my dissent to the majority’s obviously inconsistent conclusion that “the arbitrator’s award is derived from a reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.”
Article V of the collective bargaining agreement expressly provides that “[the arbitrator] is to have no authority to add to, subtract from, or modify this Agreement.” I would hold that the arbitrator’s reliance upon subsequent actions, prom*247ises, and Section 90, rather than upon the collective bargaining agreement, compels the conclusion that he exceeded his authority. Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.