Court Opinion

ID: 9762280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:18:52.899284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.730227
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, it is inappropriate and contrary to existing precedent to address the merits of the issue of whether the arbitrator’s award violated section 1006 of PERA, 43 P.S. § 1101.1006. Once it is determined that a particular matter is within the essence of the bargaining agreement, our inquiry ceases. Leechburg Area School Disk v. Dale, 492 Pa. 515, 424 A.2d 1309 (1981):
The fact that [an] arbitrator in analyzing [a] dispute may have failed to properly perceive the question presented or erroneously resolved it, does not provide justification for judicial interference. Our inquiry ends once it is determined that the issue properly defined is within the terms of the agreement.
Id., 492 Pa. at 521, 424 A.2d at 1313.
Absent a showing of fraud in the decision making process, the arbitrator’s award should not be disturbed. Assoc. of Pa. State Colleges and Univ. Faculties v. Commonwealth, 496 Pa. 239, 436 A.2d 987 (1981) (Nix, J. concurring). “Any attempt to interpret the ‘essence test’ as a device to expand judicial review in this area .. . undermines the underlying purposes sought to be obtained through arbitration.” Id.