Court Opinion

ID: 9753695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:23:01.56596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:40.597991
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I join the salient analysis of my colleague Justice Saylor.
During argument of this case, counsel candidly acknowledged that of approximately 25 cities that have “entered” Act 47 and its protections, only a handful have recovered to the point of leaving the protections of Act 47. The remaining cities have apparently found a home there; Scranton has been there nearly 20 years.
I do not propose to fault the cities or their leaders for this condition — the crutch-like aid of Act 47 can understandably lead to dependence, and extrication from a state of dependence can be difficult. However, Act 47 comes with a price, a *51sacrifice by many, including the appellants here. When, as here, their sacrifice becomes de facto permanent, one must remember who is really paying the price.
In Pennsylvania, our first responders have had their ability to strike replaced by arbitration. The reasons for this are manifest, and arbitration has generally proved a workable substitute. However, if Act 47 were allowed to eliminate meaningful arbitration, unilaterally and permanently eviscerating the ability of workers to adjudicate legitimate issues, the consequences on many levels would not be acceptable.
I believe Justice Saylor’s reasoning is analytically correct; I also believe that result is the just one, and join the holding that § 252 does not supersede Act 111 arbitration awards.
Justice BAER joins this concurring opinion.