Court Opinion

ID: 9770061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:36:58.316805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:12.127982
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION FILED BY
Senior Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Article 44, Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) provided a sound, arguable basis for the Commonwealth to assign the operation of scanning equipment in a Philadelphia state office building to an outside vendor. (Majority op. at 410-11.) I cannot agree.
Article 44, Section 2 of the CBA provides that “any and all new posts or assignments which could be staffed by Capitol Police or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Capitol Security Officers shall not be staffed in a manner that would reduce the current complement of Capitol Police Officers.” (R.R. at 190a) (emphasis added). The provision clearly applies only to new posts and assignments that could be staffed by either capítol police officers or capítol security officers. The Commonwealth cannot soundly argue that the provision applies to any other situation. The threshold question, then, is whether the operation of scanners in Philadelphia is a new post or assignment which could be staffed by capítol police officers or capítol security officers.
In Department of General Services v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 85, 903 A.2d 84 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (en banc), the Commonwealth assigned capítol security officers, rather than capítol police officers, to operate scanners in the state office buildings in Harrisburg. The FOP filed a grievance, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator held that the operation of scanners requires the exercise of police powers, and, thus, it is bargaining unit work that must be performed by capítol police officers. In so holding, the arbitrator rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that Article 44, Section 2 allowed the Commonwealth to assign capítol security officers to operate the scanners because it was a new assignment that would not reduce the complement of capítol police officers. This court upheld the arbitrator’s award.
Thus, the matter presented here was already decided in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding. A new post or assignment requiring operation of scanners cannot be staffed by either capítol police officers or capítol security officers. Such a post or assignment must be staffed by capítol police officers because it requires the exercise of police powers. Therefore, the Commonwealth could not rely on Article 44, Section 2 as an affirmative defense in this case.
The majority concludes otherwise, stating that it is the role of an arbitrator to *412interpret Article 44, Section 2 of the CBA, not the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB). (Majority op. at 411.) In other words, the majority believes that the FOP should have filed another grievance instead of a charge of unfair labor practices with the PLRB. In my view, once an arbitrator has determined the correct interpretation of a provision of a CBA, the losing party cannot ignore the final and binding award, and the prevailing party is not required to re-litigate the matter. In this case, the Commonwealth was the loser in the initial arbitration proceeding over the interpretation of Article 44, Section 2 of the CBA. The majority now holds that the initial award was not final and binding on the Commonwealth and that the FOP must once again litigate the matter. That is not my understanding of how final and binding arbitration works.
Accordingly, I would reverse.