Court Opinion

ID: 9748614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:07:53.170648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:37.605572
License: Public Domain

McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge,
Concurring.
I am constrained to join the majority opinion as stare decisis requires the application of the “essence test.” See, e.g., State System of Higher Education (Cheyney University) v. State College and University Professional Association (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135, 743 A.2d 405 (1999). However, I write separately to emphasize my agreement with Justice Castille’s concurring and dissenting opinion in State System and concurring opinion in Danville Area School District v. Danville Area Education Assoc., — Pa. -, 754 A.2d 1255 (2000). In this regard, I believe Justice Castille correctly observed that:
[T]he essence test should include a review to determine whether the arbitrator’s decision is manifestly unreasonable. Such a standard protects against unbridled discretion by the arbitrator. When parties agree to arbitrate disputes, surely they do not contemplate a circumstance where unreviewable, manifestly unreasonable decisions .will result. This approach allows for limited judicial review where the arbitrator’s decision involves an issue that is arguably covered by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, yet it is apparent that the decision was manifestly unreasonable.
Danville, op. at 1262.
Accordingly, although I deem an employee who violates rules of confidentiality to be a danger to the system, I must nevertheless join in the majority’s opinion.