Court Opinion

ID: 9764566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:27:27.976581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:58.306254
License: Public Domain

*409KELLEY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I must respectfully dissent as to the need to remand this case.
Our Supreme Court has consistently held that an arbitration award may only require a public employer to do that which it could do voluntarily. City of Washington v. Police Department of Washington, 436 Pa. 168, 177, 259 A.2d 437, 442 (1969). The Court emphasized, however, that “a public employer may not hide behind self-imposed legal restrictions.” Id. We have held that subjects which would require the employer to perform any duty or take some action which is specifically or impliedly prohibited by statutory law are excluded from the scope of an arbitration award. (Emphasis added.) Cheltenham Township v. Cheltenham Township Police Department, 11 Pa.Commonwealth 348, 352, 312 A.2d 835, 838 (1973).
Section 252 of Act 47 1 provides that:
A collective bargaining agreement or arbitration settlement executed after the adoption of a plan shall not in any manner violate, expand or diminish its provisions.
To me, our task is to construe Section 252 to determine, as a matter of law, what is meant by “provisions,” since only then can we decide whether statutory law specifically or impliedly prohibits implementation of the arbitration award.2 Act 47 does not define “provision,” nor is it defined in the Statutory Construction Act3. Hence, we must define “provision” according to its common and approved usage. The most applicable definition of “provision” is a “proviso” or “stipulation made in advance.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1827 (1966). “Proviso” is defined as “a conditional stipulation,” id., and *410“stipulation” is “a condition, requirement, or item specified in a contract, treaty, deed, will or law.” Id. at 2245.
We need now only to review the City’s recovery plan to determine what “provisions” it contains. The recovery plan is divided into several sections, as mandated by Section 241 of Act 47. Section Five of the plan is entitled “Discussion and Recommendations.” This section “identifies each issue ... relevant to the financial distress ..., describes the current situation with regard to that issue, and provides one or more recommendations to resolve the issue.”4 Within Section Five is a subsection entitled “Staffing and Service Levels.”5 This subsection discusses the history of the City’s staffing levels, provides an analysis of current staffing and finally makes six specific recommendations. Within the analysis of current staffing discussion, and under a further subheading of “Collective Bargaining Agreements”, the following language appears:6
There do not appear to be the resources for increases in either base pay or fringes, however they are expressed, in the near future. This will be the harsh reality at the bargaining table for the foreseeable future.
The court of common pleas relied on this language to find a mandatory, binding prohibition on increases in either base pay or fringe benefits. The recommendations related to staffing and service levels, however, do not incorporate this language, and the only concrete recommendation concerning collective bargaining agreements is the following:7
4. Avoid increases in the cost of fringes in the collective bargaining agreements. Propose, in future bargaining, that a two-tier system be agreed upon, which provides lesser benefits for new employees. Particular emphasis should be given to reducing the costs for paid holidays, sick leave provisions and medical insurance for retirees.
*411Section 241 of Act 47 provides that a plan formulated by the appointed coordinator shall contain recommendations.8 Section 264 provides that a municipality which “has failed or refused to follow a recommendation by a coordinator” is subject to suspension of Commonwealth funding.9 It is therefore the recommendations which are specifically mandated by Act 47, and compliance with these recommendations is a condition precedent to continued Commonwealth funding.
I would therefore hold that only the recommendations contained in the plan are mandatory, and that the “provisions” referred to in Section 252 are synonymous with the recommendations required to be in the recovery plan. Because the language relied on by the trial court is concededly not a recommendation, I would hold that the arbitrators’ salary award does not violate Section 252 of Act 47.
Similarly, I believe that the plan does not limit the increase to 2-h percent. Section Four of the recovery plan is entitled “Projections of Revenues and Expenditures.” Section Four states:
It is necessary to make a number of assumptions about costs and revenues during the period in question. The recommendations are based in part on these assumptions. In the event the assumptions do not materialize during the next two years, the City may identify other measures to arrive at a balanced budget. In this case, a revision to the recovery plan should be discussed with the coordinator and submitted to DCA [Department of Community Affairs] for approval.
Recovery Plan at 8, R. at 31a.
The plan then makes nine assumptions, among them that “[l]abor costs will increase approximately 2V2% each year.” Recovery Plan at 9, R. at 32a.
FOP argued and the trial court found that the purported limitation on labor costs was only an assumption and not a *412binding recommendation. As stated in the recovery plan itself, the language at issue is one of “a number of assumptions about costs and revenues during the period in question.” While it is true that the recommendations “are based in part on these assumptions,” I can find no recommendation which seeks to impose any percent increase on labor costs. In contrast, several of the recommendations pertaining to labor are quite specific. These include:
2. Do not increase the sworn police officer complement above present levels without first studying the shift scheduling techniques carefully to insure the best use of available personnel.
3. Actively pursue the joint police dispatch proposal. Determine what factors argue against it beyond a perceived unpopularity because the dispatchers “won’t know the streets.” Re-evaluate the actual savings which can be realized.
4. Avoid increases in the cost of fringes in the collective bargaining agreements. Propose, in future bargaining, that a two-tier system be agreed upon, which provides lesser benefits for new employees. Particular emphasis should be given to reducing the costs for paid holidays, sick leave provisions and medical insurance for retirees.
5. Institute an aggressive program to reduce overtime, particularly in the police and fire departments.
Recovery Plan at 29, R. at 52a.
These and other recommendations in the recovery plan are specific. The plan could certainly have included specific recommendations prohibiting or limiting salary increases, but did not. In fact, the recovery plan itself provides a remedy in the event that the assumptions do not materialize, allowing the City to identify other measures to arrive at a balanced budget and to discuss a revision of the recovery plan with the coordinator and to submit it to the Secretary of Community Affairs.
Just as a court opinion often consists of a specific holding and broader language which is considered dicta, the recovery plan contains specific recommendations surrounded by *413assumptions, projections, and discussion, which collectively could be labelled “dicta.” The holding of a court opinion becomes controlling law, while the dicta has no precedential value. By analogy, I believe that only the “holding” of a recovery plan should invalidate an arbitrator’s award. The language relied on by the trial court clearly constituted “dicta.” By remanding for additional evidence, we would allow the authors of the plan to testify as to what they intended their “dicta” to mean. This we should not do.

. 53 P.S. § 11701.252.

. Our scope of review is limited to a determination of the legality of the award. Fraternal Order of Police, E.B. Jermyn Lodge v. City of Scranton, 26 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 513, 364 A.2d 753 (1976).

. Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501-1991.

. Recovery Plan at 11, R. at 34a.

. Recovery Plan at 21, R. at 44a.

. Recovery Plan at 28, R. at 51a.

. Recovery Plan at 29, R. at 52a.

. 53 P.S. § 11701.241(2).

. 53 P.S. § 11701.264(a).