Court Opinion

ID: 9710554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:11:54.20678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:57.741211
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree with the result reached by the majority, I disagree with that part of the reasoning which concludes Petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts amounting to bad faith on the part of the Union. Such facts are already embodied in the majority’s opinion and, if proven, would amount to bad faith. But even so, Petitioner is seeking equitable relief in the nature of a mandatory injunction ordering the Union to arbitrate his grievance almost *938two years after the expiration of the time limit set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. The problem Petitioner faces, however, is that he does not qualify for the equitable relief.
If this Court ordered the Union to arbitrate, the arbitrator would be without jurisdiction since a timely appeal was never taken. Despite Petitioner’s receiving adequate notice of the appeal period, he never did appeal but, instead seeks equitable relief in this Court almost two years later. Equity aids the vigilant. It is not a back door to be used when one sits on his legal rights and lets them expire. Further, even if this Court granted the petition here, it would accomplish nothing. Even if this Court found bad faith and ordered the Union to arbitrate, the other party to the CBA, the Commonwealth is innocent of any wrong doing and it would be inequitable to order it to arbitrate now after such delay. Furthermore, even if the Union could be proven to be guilty of the bad faith alleged, there is an adequate remedy at law in damages for breach of the Union’s duty of fair representation, if such is the case. For these reasons, in addition to those set forth in the majority opinion, except for the holding of failure to adequately plead facts amounting to bad faith, I concur that the preliminary objections of the Union and the Commonwealth should still be sustained.