Court Opinion

ID: 9759322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:12:23.426333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.807902
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge KELLEY.
I concur with the Majority’s disposition of the first two allegations of error raised in this appeal. However, with respect to the Majority’s disposition of the final claim raised, I respectfully dissent.
Paragraph 8 of the arbitrators’ award provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n 2005, for effect in 2006, there will be a reopener in the contract solely to address issued of officer pension contributions.... ” (Reproduced Record) RR at 96a.1 Paragraph 9 of the arbitrators’ award provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll existing benefits contained in previous awards and written agreements not modified by this award shall remain as is-” Id. Thus, by delaying the disposition of the pension contributions issue until the reopener to the following year, the award carried over the pension contribution provisions of the former CBA to the successor agreement for the initial year of the successor agreement. Municipality of Monroeville v. Monroeville Police Department Wage Policy Committee, 767 A.2d 596, 599 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 566 Pa. 672, 782 A.2d 551 (2001).
In addition, Section 6 of Act 6002 provides, in pertinent part, that “[mjembers shall pay into the fund, monthly, an amount equal to not less than five per centum nor more than eight per centum of monthly compensation....” 53 P.S. § 772(a). Section 6 also provides that “[t]he remainder of the needed annual contributions, as determined by the actuary, shall become the obligation of the borough ... and shall be paid by it to the pension fund by annual appropriations.” 53 P.S. § 772(b). Section 6 further provides that:
[T]he governing body of the borough ... may, on an annual basis, by ordinance or resolution, reduce or eliminate payments into the fund by members. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, reduction or elimination of member contributions shall not permit the return of contributions or any interest or fund earnings to be made to members while actively employed as a police officer by any borough ... subject to this act....
53 P.S. § 772(c) (emphasis added).3
However, Section 12.5 of the CBA provides:
*945Effective January 1, 1990, to the extent that contributions made by Police Officers to the Police Pension Fund are in excess of the necessary funding, the Borough shall refund contributions made by Officers with appropriate interest. The Fraternal Order of Police and /or the Borough of Schuylkill Haven Police Department shall indemnify and save the Borough harmless against all claims, demands, suits or other forms of liability that shall arise out of or by reason of action taken or not taken by the Borough at the request of the Fraternal Order of Police and/or Borough of Schuylkill Haven Police Department for the purpose of complying with this clause. Further, this provision of this clause applies only to Police Officers in the employ of the Borough on or after January 1, 1990. This provision is not applicable to any Police Officer who may have previously been employed by the Borough on or before December 31, 1989.
RR at 44a. Thus, the foregoing provisions of the CBA conflict with the express provisions of Sections 6 and 9 of Act 600, 53 P.S. §§ 772(c) and 775, which precludes the refund of contributions, and interest or fund earnings, to active members and only permits the refund of contributions with interest to members who are ineligible to receive a pension. As a result, the trial court did not err in vacating Paragraph 8 of the arbitrators’ award which carried over the foregoing violative pension contribution provisions of the former CBA to the successor agreement for the initial year of the successor agreement.4
*946Accordingly, unlike the Majority, I would affirm the trial court’s order in all respects.5

. In this appeal, there is no allegation of error with respect to the portion of Paragraph 8 of the award concerning a reopener on the issue of “part-timer participation in overtime opportunities". See Id.

. Act of May 29, 1956, P.L. (1955) 1804, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 767-778.

. The caveat provided for in Section 6 states:
[Wjhere an agreement, collectively bargained or otherwise, arbitration award or court decision was agreed to, issued or rendered on or prior to February 23, 1994, which provided for a return of contributions, with or without interest, or fund earnings to members, a return of contributions, with or without interest, or fund earnings shall be made to members and any *945such return of contributions shall reduce or eliminate any entitlement to refunds pursuant to section 9. No borough ... making such return or member receiving such return shall be required to restore to the fund any such contributions, interest or fund earnings.
53 P.S. § 772(c).
In turn, Section 9 of Act 600 provides, in pertinent part:
Any member of a police force of a borough ... who for any reason whatsoever, shall be ineligible to receive a pension after having contributed any charges to a police pension fund established pursuant to the provisions of this act, or to a police pension fund existing on the effective date of this act supplanted by a police pension fund established pursuant to the provisions of this act, shall be entitled to a refund of all such moneys paid by him into such funds plus all interest earned by such moneys while in the police pension fund, less any return of contributions and interest made to members pursuant to section 6, as determined by regulations of the governing body immediately upon discontinuance of his employment with the police force....
53 P.S. § 775.

. See, e.g., Municipality of Monroeville, 767 A.2d at 600-601, wherein this Court stated the following:
In [Lee v. Municipality of Bethel Park, 722 A.2d 1165 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999)], this Court followed the decision in [Borough of Dormont v. Dormont Borough Police Department, 654 A.2d 69 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 541 Pa. 628, 661 A.2d 875 (1995),] and held that where there is an interest arbitration award, an employer may subsequently assert the illegality of a condition or provision because it did not have the opportunity to do so during the bargaining process. Moreover, a board of arbitrators exceeds its power when an award requires a municipality to take an action that is prohibited by statutory law. Swatara Township v. Swatara Township Police Department, [642 A.2d 660 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994)], petition for allowance of appeal denied, 540 Pa. 589, 655 A.2d 519 (1995). In Swatara, this Court stated as follows:
In cases where both Act 111 and Act 600 are applicable, we have held that the provisions of Act 600 limit the authority granted by Act 111 with respect to arbitration. In [In re Arbitration Between ] Borough of Berwick [and ] Borough of Berwick Police Dep't. [618 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Cmwlth.1992), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 536 Pa. 647, 639 A.2d 33 (1994)], where arbitrators violated Act 600 by permitting police to retire after only twenty years of service, we stated that: *946there must be excluded from the scope of the Act [Act 111] and necessarily outside of the definition of bargainable issues, any subject which would require the government employer to perform any duty or to take some action which is specifically or impliedly prohibited by the statutory law governing its affairs. Such subjects are, of course, equally beyond the scope of an arbitration award.
Swatara, 642 A.2d at 662 (footnote omitted) (quoting Borough of Berwick, 618 A.2d at 1188).

. It is well settled that this Court may affirm the decision of the trial court on any basis, without regard to the basis on which the trial court below relied. Upper Makefield Township v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 562 Pa. 113, 753 A.2d 803 (2000).