Court Opinion

ID: 9637063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:55:39.364616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:52.826814
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
When it enacted Section 805 of the Public Employees Relation Act (Act 195),1 the General Assembly explicitly provided that an interest arbitration award would be “final and binding” unless it would require a “legislative enactment” to implement. The majority holds that payment of employee expenses is not a term of employment subject to collective bargaining, but that same executive members of the administration negotiating with the collective bargaining agent for the corrections officers *372can, by instigating a regulation authorized by the Administrative Code, unilaterally decide if an expense is to be paid. It then goes on to hold that if the administration officials decide to reimburse an expense, they can unilaterally decide how much and under what conditions an employee is to be reimbursed, even if the amount reimbursed does not cover the employee’s cost. Applying that reasoning to the award here, the majority sets aside an interest arbitration award that requires the Commonwealth to pay for counsel fee expenses incurred by a corrections officer because those fees are inconsistent with a regulation adopted by the public employer.
' I respectfully dissent because that holding is in conflict with the legislatively-mandated scheme set forth in Act 195 that all matters related to employment are subject to collective bargaining as so holding. Specifically, I disagree with the majority because:
1. A Regulation is not a “Legislative Enactment.” Under Section 805 of Act 195, an arbitration award is “final and binding” unless it requires a “legislative enactment” to be effective. Because a regulation adopted by the Executive Board is not a “legislative enactment,” the arbitration award is final and binding.
2. No Statute Prohibits the Award. Under Section 703 of Act 195,2 a condition of employment must be negotiated by an employer if it impacts wages, hours and other terms or conditions of employment unless applicable statutory provisions explicitly and definitively prohibit the public employer from making an agreement as to that specific term or condition of employment. Because there is no statutory prohibition against negotiating over legal representation, including in the Administrative Code, the matter is subject to collective bargaining and arbitration.
3. Reimbursement of Employee Expenses are Subject to Collective Bargaining Under Act 195.
4. The Award is Not Reviewable Under the Narrow Certiorari Test. Because there is nothing that would foreclose the Commonwealth from providing legal representation set forth in the arbitration award, under the narrow cer-tiorari test, the matter is not within our discretion to review.
A.
In this case, involving an Act 195 bargaining unit, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Public Welfare (Commonwealth) were unable to reach an agreement on a successor collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to the 2001-2004 CBA on many issues, including representation of Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association (Association) members, some of which were corrections personnel, in legal proceedings (civil suits) arising from job-related conduct arising in the course and scope of their employment. The previous CBA had provided that the “Employer [Commonwealth] shall provide liability coverage and legal defense in civil suits as detailed in Title 4 PA Code Chapter 39 [Defense of Suits Against Commonwealth Employees] and Management Directives 205.6 and 630.2.” (Reproduced Record at 59a.) As for criminal cases, the Commonwealth was permitted under the CBA to provide an employee with counsel; if-it did not, then it was required to provide reasonable attorneys’ fees to be recovered later from the employee’s retirement account if the defense was ultimately un*373successful. If the employee’s defense was successful on a verdict following a jury trial, the Commonwealth was responsible for all reasonable attorneys’ fees.
The parties submitted their dispute to binding interest arbitration and hearings were held before a panel of arbitrators. The Association argued that Article 33, Section 21 of the previous CBA provided the Commonwealth with unfettered discretion in determining whether to provide employees with a contractual benefit. It presented evidence that in 2002, over 1,500 lawsuits were filed, including suits involving criminal charges that were dismissed as frivolous. It stated that requests for reimbursement of legal fees were routinely denied by the Commonwealth because the CBA required acquittal after a jury trial. The Association proposed changes to Article 33, Section 21 that would mandate the Commonwealth to provide legal representation to employees named in a civil complaint or reimburse counsel fees in defense of a criminal complaint when arising out of the job duties, as well as payment of civil judgments. The Commonwealth opposed the changes, stating that 4 Pa.Code § 39.1, adopted by the Executive Board,3 prohibited Commonwealth lawyers from representing employees in criminal matters. The arbitration panel issued an award adopting the Association’s proposed amendments to language in the CBA.4 The Commonwealth filed an appeal to this Court from that arbitration award contending that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority because those provisions were at variance with 4 Pa.Code §§ 39.1-39.3 that provided the matter in which representation would be provided.
Agreeing with the Commonwealth, the majority strikes down that portion of the arbitration award reasoning:
• Section 709(f) of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. § 249(f), gives the Executive Board the authority to make rules and regulations providing for travel, lodging and “other expenses” for which all officers and employes of the executive branch of the State Government may be reimbursed;
• The Executive Board adopted as regulations, not policy statements, those provisions set forth at 4 Pa.Code §§ 39.1-39.3 relating to the legal representation of all executive branch employees; and
• Because those regulations have the same force and effect of law, to the extent that the Arbitration Panel’s award varies from the manner in which legal representation by the Common*374wealth is offered, it must be struck down as unlawful.
B.
I disagree with the majority because what determines whether the arbitration award was enforceable is not whether the Code provisions relating to legal representation are policy statements or regulations, but whether the arbitration award here requires a “legislative enactment” to implement its terms. Section 805 of Act 195, 43 P.S. § 1101.805, the specific provision authorizing interest arbitration for guards and other essential public personnel, provides:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act where representatives of units of guards at, prisons or mental hospitals or units of employes directly involved with and necessary to the functioning of the courts of this Commonwealth have reached an impasse in collective bargaining ..., the impasse shall be submitted to a panel of arbitrators whose decision shall be ñnal and binding upon both parties with the proviso that the decisions of the arbitrators which would require legislative enactment to be effective shall be considered advisory only. (Emphasis added.)
The majority posits that the arbitration award cannot be implemented because Section 216 of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. § 249,5 and what it calls its companion provision, Section 214 of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. § 74, vest exclusive authority in the Executive Board to fix what can be reimbursed and at what cost for all officers and employees, including guards at prisons and mental hospitals. Because exclusive authority is vested in the Executive Board, it holds that a “legislative enactment” would be needed to amend those two provisions of the Administrative Code to make expenses subject of bargaining. Moreover, because reimbursement or payment of legal fees cannot be negotiated because it is not a term of employment, the majority finds that award is illegal and cannot be implemented.6 The majority is wrong for several reasons.
First, provisions of the Administrative Code do not need to be amended because those provisions dealing with terms and working conditions of employment have already been superseded for union employees by Act 195 which gave public employees the right to bargain. Section 101 of Act 195, 43 P.S. § 1101.101, provides that it was the public policy of the Commonwealth to require “public employers to negotiate and bargain with employe organizations representing public employes and *375to enter into written agreements evidencing the result of such bargaining ...” Section 701 of Act 195, 43 P.S. § 1101.701, provides that public employers must negotiate with public employees over “wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder.” While under Act 195 the Executive Branch has the discretion to negotiate those terms, the General Assembly, by providing in Section 803 of Act 195 that a provision of an award was “final and binding” unless it requires a “legislative enactment,” meant that the Executive Branch, including the Executive Board, could have the terms and conditions fixed by an arbitrator. (See also Section C, infra.)
Second, contrary to the majority, nothing requires a legislative enactment because only a regulation and not a statute is at odds with the award. A “legislative enactment” is the passage of a statute by the General Assembly, not the adoption of a regulation by an administrative agency.7 Because a regulation can be changed by the Executive Branch in its discretion and does not require a legislative enactment, i.e., a statute by the General Assembly, under Section 805 of Act 195, the award is legal, final and binding.
Third, the inescapable outcome of the majority reasoning is that for all intents and purposes, public employment collective bargaining would cease to exist as we know it because there are statutes vesting “exclusive jurisdiction” in department heads, city councils, mayors and supervisors to set salaries and determine other terms and conditions of employment. Particularly pertinent here is Section 214 of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. § 74, providing that:
[Hjeads of the several administrative departments, ... and the independent administrative boards and commissions, shall ... fix the compensation of such directors, superintendents, bureau or division chiefs, assistant directors, assistant superintendents, assistant chiefs, experts, scientists, engineers, surveyors, draftsmen, accountants, secretaries, auditors, inspectors, examiners, statisticians, marshals, clerks, stenographers, bookkeepers, messengers, and other assistants and employes as may be required for the proper conduct of the work of their respective departments, boards, or commissions. Except as otherwise provided in this act, the heads of the respective administrative departments shall appoint and fix the compensation of such clerks, stenographers, *376and other assistants, as may be required for the proper conduct of the work of any departmental administrative bodies, boards, commissions, or officers, and of any advisory boards or commissions established in their respective departments. (Emphasis added.)
Under the majority’s reasoning then, the compensation of prison guards is not subject to bargaining because that determination is within the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the “head” of the Department of Corrections. Also, applying the majority reasoning, neither is sick leave or vacations subject to bargaining because they are similarly determined by regulations issued by the Executive Board.8 Again, Act 195 makes all terms and conditions of employment subject to bargaining unless, by statute, the matter is specifically excluded from collective bargaining.
In response to my suggestion that its “exclusive jurisdiction” to fix “expenses” reasoning equally applies to the “exclusive jurisdiction” given to department heads to fix all employees’ compensation under the Administrative Code, the majority states, of course, “compensation” or “wages” are negotiable because Act 195 specifically so provides. The majority then goes on to state that because “expenses” are not “compensation,” they are not negotiable, can be reimbursed solely as determined by a public employer, and are not subject to collective bargaining. It reasons that is so because an employee salary is assumed to cover all work-related expenses, unless the Executive Board deigns to reimburse those expenses, an expense associated with work that is not reimbursable.
The majority position is inconsistent in that if expenses are presumed to come out of an employee’s salary, then expenses, including legal expenses, are sübject to negotiation and arbitration in determining the amount of salary an employee is to receive. Moreover, the majority ignores that Act 1959 authorizes collective bargaining over all “terms and conditions of employment” which includes “expenses” such as uniform allowances, “sick leaves” and “paid leaves of absence,” i.e., “vacations.” 10
Finally, the majority holds that legal fees are not negotiable or awardable by an arbitrator because they are not terms or conditions of employment, necessarily implying that all such provisions contained in *377existing contracts are illegal. What this ignores is that most public officials, including judges, are routinely sued for actions they undertake as part of carrying out their responsibilities — it comes with the job — it is a condition of employment. To insure that a defense is made available, collective bargaining agents for law enforcement officers negotiate with or seek to have awarded reimbursement of counsel fees incurred in defense of actions brought against their members arising out of their employment. By holding that counsel fees are not terms of employment, the majority removes them a subject from bargaining, meaning similar provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements throughout this Commonwealth are now illegal. Moreover, because a police officer or corrections officer’s defense is not subject to bargaining, under the majority’s reasoning, whether a corrections or police officer’s counsel fees are paid is now at the sufferance of the public employer.11
c.
Even assuming that the cited regulations are tantamount to a statute or the pertinent Administrative Code provisions have not been supplanted, the majority ignores that a statute covering the same subject matter does not mean that the matter is not subject to bargaining. Section 703 of Act 195, 43 P.S. § 1101.703, forbids implementation of a provision in conflict with a statute only where the statute specifically prohibits that the matter be subject to collective bargaining. Section 703 provides:
The parties to the collective bargaining process shall not effect or implement a provision in a collective bargaining agreement if the implementation of that provision would be in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with any statute or statutes enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the provisions *378of municipal home rule charters. (Emphasis added.)
We cogently described the scope of this section recently in Abel v. City of Pittsburgh, 890 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (Leavitt J.), where we stated:
Section 703 of Act 195 has been the subject of definitive interpretation by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District, 461 Pa. 494, 337 A.2d 262 (1975), the meaning of Section 703 was raised in the context of a teachers’ collective bargaining agreement. The Public School Code of 1949 established an extensive and comprehensive system to meet the educational needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth. This Court held that the duties given to a public school board could not be the subject of collective bargaining. Because it was the duty of the school board to set teacher salaries, teacher salaries could not be established by negotiation. Thus, Section 701 of Act 195, which mandates public employers and representatives of public employees to negotiate “with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment” was found not to apply.
The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that, notwithstanding the Public School Code mandate, a school board was required to negotiate wages. It explained why Section 703 did not compel another result.
The mere fact that a particular subject matter may be covered by legislation does not remove it from collective bargaining under section 701 if it bears on the question of wages, hours and conditions of employment. We believe that section 703 only prevents the agreement to and implementation of any term which would be in violation of or inconsistent with any statutory directive. State College Area School District, 461 Pa. at 508, 337 A.2d at 269. It further explained that in determining a “violation ... with any statutory directive,” courts must examine that “statutory directive” as follows: [Ijtems bargainable under section 701 are only excluded under section 703 where other applicable statutory provisions explicitly and definitively prohibit the public employer from making an agreement as to that specific term or condition of employment. Id. at 510, 337 A.2d at 270.
Thus, State College Area School District teaches that Section 703 prohibits parties from collectively bargaining a term that another statute “explicitly and definitively prohibits] the public employer from making.” Id. In the absence of a direct prohibition, an issue must be negotiated under Section 701 if it impacts wages, hours and other terms or conditions of employment. (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.)
See also Pittsburgh Joint Collective Bargaining Committee v. City of Pittsburgh, 481 Pa. 66, 391 A.2d 1318 (1978) (discharging of a civil service employee was subject to arbitration even though there was a provision in the second class city code that civil service provisions of that Act were “intended ... to furnish a complete and exclusive system for the appointment, promotion, reduction, transfer, removal, or reinstatement of all officers, clerks, laborers, and other employés in the civil service of the cities of the second class in this commonwealth.” 53 P.S. § 23461.)
Because nothing in the Administrative Code forbids the Executive Board from agreeing to negotiate matters relating to legal representation of correctional officers, the matter is required to be submitted to arbitration under Section 805 of Act 195 if an agreement cannot be reached.
*379D.
Finally, assuming that the majority’s interpretation is correct, because all that is claimed is that the arbitration award relating to legal representation is at variance with a regulation, it is not reviewable under the narrow certiorari test. In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 ex rel. Costello v. City of Philadelphia, 725 A.2d 206 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), we held that appeals from mandatory interest arbitration under Act 195 are not reviewed under the essence test, but are reviewed under the more narrow certiorari test. Narrow cer-tiorari requires us to review only the question of jurisdiction, the regularity of the proceedings, questions of excess in the exercise of the arbitrator’s powers and constitutional questions. Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Association, 540 Pa. 66, 71, 656 A.2d 83, 85 (1995). In this case, the majority, without so stating, seems to imply that we can reach this question because the award was in excess of the arbitrator’s powers as the award was not in accord with the Administrative Code provision relating to legal representation.
Just because the award is at variance with a regulation does not necessarily mean that it is in excess of the arbitration panel’s powers. As our Supreme Court has instructed, what is in excess of the arbitrator’s powers under that narrow cer-tiorari test is not whether the decision is unwise, manifestly unreasonable, burdens the taxpayer, is against public policy or is an error of law; an arbitrator only exceeds his power if he mandates that an illegal act be carried out or requires a public employer to do that which the employer could not do voluntarily. See generally Borough of Nazareth v. Nazareth Borough Police Association, 545 Pa. 85, 680 A.2d 830 (1996); Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Association. Because nothing forbids the Commonwealth from providing for legal representation as was called for under the award, we cannot reach this issue under the narrow certiora-ri standard.
Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, I would affirm the award.
Judges SMITH-RIBNER and FRIEDMAN join this dissenting opinion.

. Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, 43 P.S. § 1101.805

. 43 P.S. § 1101.703.

. "The Executive Board shall consist of the Governor, who shall be Chairman thereof, and six other heads of administrative departments to be designated from time to time by the Governor." Section 204 of the Administrative Code, April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, 71 P.S. § 64.

. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Association with the Commonwealth had a similar provision to the one being challenged here. That contract provides in Article 27 entitled “Legal Counsel” the following:
Section 1. If a member is charged with a criminal action arising from the performance of his/her duties, he/she shall select local counsel in consultation with his/her Commanding Officer. The Commonwealth shall pay for the fees of such counsel to the extent the fees are in line with prevailing rates in the area.
Section 2. If a member is a defendant in a civil suit arising from the performance of his/her duties, the Commonwealth shall immediately furnish counsel and defend the member.
Section 3. The Commonwealth shall be responsible for judgments rendered against the member in job-related suits where the member has acted within the scope and responsibility of his/her office.
See Pennsylvania State Police v. Fraternal Order of Police, 160 Pa.Cmwlth. 251, 634 A.2d 789 (1993).

. 71 P.S. § 249 provides in relevant part: "Subject to the rules and regulations of the Executive Board, the heads of administrative departments, the members of independent administrative boards and commissions, the members of departmental administrative bodies, boards, and commissions, the members of advisory boards and commissions, all administrative officers, and all persons employed under the provisions of this act, shall be entitled to receive their traveling and other necessary expenses, actually incurred in the performance of their public duties...."

. The majority posits that the dissent is raising a "brand new issue” because the dissent relies on Section 805 of Act 195 for its position that the Commonwealth is required to carry out an award unless it requires a "legislative enactment.” I am a bit non plussed by that position, considering that the majority states the "Commonwealth’s issue on appeal [is] whether the [arbitration] award requires the Commonwealth to perform acts prohibited by law.” If the Commonwealth is required by Section 805 to implement any award not requiring a legislative enactment, this is not a "brand new issue,” but a direct answer to the issue raised. The majority, I respectfully suggest, is confusing what is an issue and what is a rationale.

. Our Supreme Court in Franklin County Prison Board v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 491 Pa. 50, 60-61, 417 A.2d 1138, 1143 (1980), held that what was a "legislative enactment" for the purpose of Section 805 of Act 195 required appropriation of funds or levying of taxes by a legislative body. In doing so, it rejected the assertion that the fixing of salaries and compensation by a Salary Board was equivalent with appropriation of funds and levying of taxes by a lawmaking body. In holding that Salary Board actions were merely legislative in nature, it went on to state:
[S]ection 805 of Act 195 provides decisions of arbitrators considering collective bargaining impasses between affected employes and their employers "shall be final and binding upon both parties with the proviso that the decisions of the arbitrators which would require legislative enactment to be effective shall be considered advisory only.” In light of the expressed purposes of Act 195 and the reliance on arbitration as an alternative to striking (especially for those employes prohibited from striking), we cannot accept the Prison Board’s interpretation of section 805 that the mere existence of authority in the Salary Board to "fix salaries and compensation” renders all arbitration awards touching upon such items advisory only. Such an interpretation would nullify, for all practical purposes, the "final and binding” provisions of section 805 for all awards regarding salaries or other compensation.

.The majority's holding will not only remove legal representation for correction officers, but will also remove other areas from collective bargaining for all employees because the Administrative Code requires that they be set by regulation by the Executive Board. For example, Section 222 of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. § 82, provides, in relevant part:
(b) Each salaried, hourly or per diem employe of such department, board, or commission shall be entitled each calendar year to annual leave of absence with pay in accordance with regulations established by the Executive Board.
(c) Each salaried, hourly or per diem employe of such department, board or commission shall be entitled each calendar year to sick leave with pay in accordance with regulations established by the Executive Board.
(Emphasis added.)

. Section 701 of Act 195 provides that “Collective bargaining is the performance of the mutual obligation of the public employer and the representative of the public employes to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached....” 43 P.S. § 1101.701.

. The majority states that "under the dissent’s logic, any provision contained in a bargaining unit might seek in a CBA is a 'term and condition’ of employment,” when all that it says is that if it relates to employment, then it is the subject of negotiation.

. To mask that it is making the reimbursement of legal fees and other expenses totally at the sufferance of the Executive Board subjecting corrections officers and state troopers to financial ruin for meritless charges brought by criminals, the majority cites egregious examples for which the Employer would be responsible for counsel fees and payment of judgments. I agree with the majority that it would be unfortunate if the Commonwealth would have to pay fees in those circumstances. Much like we toss out coerced confessions that limit the ability to convict individuals to further the overriding good that the Constitution should be followed, the Commonwealth may have to pay those fees so that corrections officers and state troopers know that they can carry out their duties assured that their families will not be financially ruined by having to pay counsel fees.
Nonetheless, ignoring both the majority's and my rhetoric, our Supreme Court has held that legal fees are to be paid, even in excessive force claims, as long as the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment. In Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 537 Pa. 68, 641 A.2d 289 (1994), our Supreme Court required the City to indemnify a police officer found liable to the plaintiff under various state tort claims arising out of the officer’s use of unnecessary or excessive force in arresting the plaintiff. The Court imposed liability on the City under the Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8548(a), for the judgment against the officer because he acted within the scope of his duties. See also Wiehagen v. Borough of North Braddock, 527 Pa. 517, 594 A.2d 303 (1991) (holding borough liable in state court to indemnify police officer for compensatory damages judgment against him for using excessive force and holding borough liable for plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses incurred in a Section 1983 action because he was acting within scope of his employment.)
The majority states there is a difference between those cases and the award here because those cases did not require counsel fees to paid when incurred. This is a "pay me now, or pay me later’’ distinction, a distinction without a difference as to whether correction officers' counsel fees can be reimbursed.