Court Opinion

ID: 9748466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:02:31.119183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:35.588143
License: Public Domain

Justice BAER,
concurring.
I join in full this Court’s per curiam order denying relief and write separately to explain my reasoning. First, the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 (Local 22) seeks relief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1732(a),1 but has failed to comply with a generalized precondition of that rule requiring that relief first be sought in the lower court; here the *622Commonwealth Court. Moreover, Local 22 has chosen to file a parallel action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. This Court and the trial court’s simultaneous involvement in this matter could lead to piecemeal and inconsistent results. Given that extraordinary relief is sought before us, prudence dictates that we deny relief pending the outcome of proceedings in the trial court, and orderly appeals therefrom.2 Hence, my joinder.
I write further, however, to note my belief that the City of Philadelphia acts at its own peril in closing these fire companies during the pendency of this litigation. The interest arbitration panel found that the City was required to engage in a multi-step process including, potentially, grievance arbitration prior to future closing of the fire companies. The Commonwealth Court vacated the arbitration panel’s award in this regard. We granted allocatur to determine whether the Commonwealth Court was correct in finding that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers. Should Local ultimately prevail on the merits,3 it is my view that equity will preclude Philadelphia from arguing mootness as to the closed fire companies. While I express no view regarding those merits, if this Court were to rule against the City of Philadelphia, the City could find itself compelled to reopen the fire companies, and then proceed to the multi-step process imposed by the arbitration panel before again closing them. I recognize that our country is in precarious financial times, and Philadelphia desires to close these fire companies in furtherance of its budget-reducing efforts. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that *623the cost of reopening closed fire companies and then engaging in the multi-step process directed by the arbitration panel could substantially exceed the cost of leaving these fire companies open during the pendency of this appeal. Notwithstanding all of this, it is for the City of Philadelphia to assess firefighter and resident safety, “crunch” its numbers, discuss its options, and determine its actions at this time.

. Rule 1732(a) states:
(a) Application to lower court. Application for a stay of an order of a lower court pending appeal, or for approval of or modification of the terms of any supersedeas, or for an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting an injunction during the pendency of an appeal, or for relief in the nature of peremptory mandamus, must ordinarily be made in the first instance to the lower court, except where a prior order under this chapter has been entered in the matter by the appellate court or a judge thereof.
Pa.R.A.P. 1732(a).

. In fact, we have become aware that the trial court denied Local 22 preliminary injunctive relief; on appeal the Commonwealth Court likewise denied the application for injunctive relief; and Local 22 has now sought this Court’s intervention in that action arising from the trial court. These interim developments reinforce my concern that the merits of this matter not be decided twice by this Court. Given that the request for review from the trial court's denial of relief contains an evidentiary record, I believe it the better vehicle for our ultimate resolution of Local 22’s request for injunctive relief.

. Such matter is scheduled for oral argument before this Court during its March 2009 argument session.