Court Opinion

ID: 9694207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:29:30.108627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:57.432269
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I cannot agree with the majority’s expansive reading of Section 1142(a) of the Pennsylvania School Code (Code),1 I respectfully dissent.
Section 1142 provides:
§ 11-1142. Minimum Salaries and Increments
(a) Except as hereinafter otherwise provided, all school districts and vocational school districts shall pay all regular and temporary teachers, supervisors, directors and coordinators of vocational education, psychologists, teachers of classes for exceptional children, supervising principals, vocational teachers, and principals in the public schools of the district the minimum salaries and increments for the school year 1968-1969 and each school year thereafter, as provided in the following tabulation in accordance with the column in which the professional employe is grouped and the step which the professional employe has attained by years of experience within the school district each step after step 1 constituting one year of service. When a school district, by agreement, places a professional employe on a step in the salary scale, each step thereafter shall constitute one year of service. When a district adopts a salary scale in excess of the mandated scale, it shall not be deemed to have altered or increased the step which the employe has gained through years of service.
24 P.S. § 11-1142(a)2 (emphasis supplied).
The majority interprets the above emphasized sentence from Section 1142(a) to require that a professional employee’s *337past years of service in the same school district are to be credited upon rehire for purposes of placement on a local salary scale. However, there is no language contained in the sentence to support such an interpretation.
The language of a statute must be read in a sense which harmonizes with the subject matter and its general purpose and object. Swartley v. Harris, 351 Pa. 116, 40 A.2d 409 (1945). The sole subject matter of Section 1142, as reflected in the title, “Minimum Salaries and Increments,” is the establishment and preservation of minimum salaries for professional school district employees based on years of service.
When a school district adopts a local salary step schedule, Section 1142(a)’s lone requirement is that the salary corresponding to the step on the local scale which a professional employee is placed be equal to or greater than the salary corresponding to the step on the state mandated minimum scale the employee has gained through years of service in the school district.3 The final sentence of Section 1142(a) does nothing more than prevent an employee’s receipt of a salary higher than the minimum from being construed as placement on a step higher than he or she has attained through years of service.
As “[t]he sole limitation the Legislature has imposed is the requirement that a school district comply with the applicable statewide minimum salary schedule,” Wildrick v. Board of Directors of Sayre Area School District, 491 Pa. 25, 31, 417 A.2d 617, 619-620 (1980), the mere fact that in this case the District adopted a salary scale in excess of the statewide *338minimum does not alter or increase the Code-mandated minimum salary corresponding to the step which the Grievants had gained through total previous years of service in the District. The District’s placement of the Grievants on the local salary scale at steps which did not give the Grievants credit for each year they were employed prior to their breaks in service is not in violation of, or inconsistent with the Code.4
The arbitrator’s decision denying the grievance thus represents a legitimate, reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and the District, which is not in violation of, or inconsistent with statutory law.5 The order of the Commonwealth Court which reinstated *339the arbitrator’s award should therefore be affirmed. Accordingly, I dissent.
Chief Justice FLAHERTY joins in this Dissenting Opinion.

. Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. § 11-1121.

. In 1988, the Legislature enacted 24 P.S. § 1142.1, which effectively supersedes 24 P.S. § 1142. However, as the collective bargaining agreement in the instant case had already been entered into and was in effect prior to the effective date of Section 1142.1, Section 1142 remains applicable to the instant case.

. In this case, although the Grievants were not given credit on the local scale for each year they were employed by the District prior to their breaks in service, each Grievant was placed on a step on the local scale with a salary greater than that required by the step on the state mandated schedule the employee had gained through total years of service in the District. For example, Grievant Carol Brann, whom the Association claimed should have been placed at step eight of the local scale (corresponding to fifteen years of service in the District), rather then step six (corresponding to eleven years of service), received the step six salary of $24,275 for the 1988-89 school year. That salary is significantly greater than the Section 1142 state mandated minimum salary of $9,800 for professional employees with fifteen years of service in the same district.

. To the extent that such an interpretation of Section 1142(a) conflicts with Centennial School District v. Centennial Education Association, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 382, 576 A.2d 99 (1990), the Commonwealth Court’s decision should be expressly overruled.

. The majority opines that the proper standard of review in this case is the essence test. Although I certainly would agree that the essence test is the proper standard of review for a challenge to an arbitrator’s interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, such a deferential standard of review does not apply when reviewing a challenge to an arbitrator’s interpretation of statutory law incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. In the latter case, as here, our standard of review is plenary. See generally Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Bald Eagle Area School District, 499 Pa. 62, 451 A.2d 671 (1982). There, we stated:
Courts have no reason to assume an arbitrator will ignore the law and award a payment based on a contractual interpretation which conflicts with a fundamental policy of this Commonwealth expressed in statutory law. If so, judicial relief is available. See Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College, A.S.D., 461 Pa. 494, 337 A.2d 262 (1975); Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Zelem, 459 Pa. 399, 329 A.2d 477 (1974); Washington Arbitration Case, 436 Pa. 168, 259 A.2d 437 (1969). Moreover, the judiciary has express statutory authority to review and correct or modify arbitration awards against the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions in the same manner as jury verdicts on a motion for judgment N.O.V. Judicial Code § 7302(d)(2), 42 Pa.C.S. § 7302(d)(2).
499 Pa. at 67, 451 A.2d at 673 (footnote omitted).
I note with interest the majority’s lengthy response criticizing this reference to Bald Eagle. (Majority Op. at 344 n.6). I must point out, however, that I deliberately used as an introductory signal a term of art which I believed to be easily recognizable. See The University of Chicago Manual of Legal Citation 12 (1989) ("An authority may be introduced ... by an ordinary English phrase explaining its force and or purpose.” Rule 3.1(b)); The Bluebook: A Uniform System of *339Citation 23 (16th ed. 1996) (“See generally” defined as: “Cited authority presents helpful background material related to the proposition.” Rule 1.2(d)).
My position as it relates to the proper standard of review in this case remains intact. The majority finds, as a matter of law, that the arbitrator’s decision is violative of the Code. By definition, the majority has conducted plenary review of the arbitrator’s interpretation of statutory law incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement, and has not deferred to the arbitrator’s analysis as the essence test mandates.