Court Opinion

ID: 9752049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:31:41.426574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:36.184355
License: Public Domain

PELLEGRINI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to Section III of the majority opinion vacating the award of the arbitrator and reinstating the dismissal. Although I fully agree with the scope of review applied by the majority opinion, I would affirm the award of the arbitrator because it was rationally derived from the agreement between the parties. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266, 553 A.2d 948 (1989).
Officer DiRaimo was charged with conduct unbecoming a police officer, Field Regulation (F.R.) 1-1.01, and failure to conform to and abide by the laws, F.R. 1-1.02, for his unauthorized use of a Commonwealth credit card. Officer DiRaimo admitted to using the credit card to purchase five dollars worth of gasoline for his personal vehicle on a trip home from out-of-town training when he was driving a state police vehicle, with his wife following him in their car.1 The State Police discharged Officer DiRaimo based on the charges.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (Agreement) between the State Police and the Fraternal Order of Police imposed by *638an arbitration award provides the employee with an election of forums when accused of an offense that is subject to court-martial proceedings. Section 4 of Article XXVIII.2 Officer DiRaimo elected to grieve the discharge contending that the penalty was not appropriate considering the circumstances of the unauthorized use. The issue submitted to the arbitrator was “whether or not just cause exists for the Grievant’s [Officer DiRaimo’s] discharge.”
By allowing for the substitution of the grievance arbitration process for court-martial procedures, the Agreement in effect provides that the arbitrator should fill the same role as the Board and the Commissioner of the State Police in court-martial proceedings. The role of the Board and Commissioner are set forth in Section 711 of The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. § 251(b)(2), which provides that the Board shall first fully hear the charges and the complaints against the person and decide if the evidence substantiates the charges and then recommend to the Commissioner the penalty to be imposed. The Commissioner may disregard the recommendation of the Board as to penalty and may increase or reduce it. Because the arbitrator is fulfilling the role of the Board and the Commissioner in hearing charges subject to court-martial proceedings, unless otherwise limited by the issue presented or the contract, the arbitrator can conduct a full hearing, *639determine if the evidence substantiates the charges and determine if the penalty is proper.3
In determining the issue of whether there was just cause for dismissal, the penalty imposed by the State Police, an arbitrator should examine the agreement for guidance on the appropriate penalty and ascertain whether the General Assembly by statute imposed a sanction. In this case, the Agreement did not contain any type of penalty section or listing of violations of Field Regulations that would result in dismissal. No statutory section relates to the penalties imposed on state police officers who violate the Field Regulations or, as in this case, are convicted of summary offenses. Where neither the Agreement nor any statutory provisions mandate the type of discipline to be imposed for a particular offense, the arbitrator may address whether dismissal was the proper penalty for the acts committed and, if not, state the appropriate penalty.
This case differs from those where there are provisions in the agreement or statutory provisions which mandate the type of penalty to be imposed or limit the arbitrator’s powers to determine penalties. In Independent State Stores Union, where a liquor store manager was accused of misappropriating funds and failing to perform the duties of the store relating to accounting and counter practices, the agreement between the parties stated that the Commonwealth would not dismiss an *640employee without just cause and listed the offenses of theft and a “serious violation of counter procedures” as just cause for immediate dismissal. The Supreme Court held that because the arbitrator found that the charged acts of impropriety were committed, that just cause for dismissal was established. See also Manheim Central Education Association v. Manheim Central School District, 132 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 94, 572 A.2d 31 (1990), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 661, 582 A.2d 326 (1990) (Section 1122 of the Public School Code provided that immorality, which was the charge made against the teacher, was a valid cause for termination); County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380, 548 A.2d 1194 (1988) (the agreement between the parties specifically stated that the arbitrator could only decide, the question of fact as to whether there was just cause for discipline and reserved to the County the right to determine the type of discipline imposed).
Because I believe the arbitrator had the power under the Agreement to reduce the penalty levied by the State Police against an officer, absent contrary contractual or statutory provisions which do not exist here, the substitution of a suspension instead of a dismissal was rationally derived from the Agreement between the parties and the arbitrator’s award should be affirmed.

. Officer DiRaimo also pled guilty to a summary offense under the Crimes Code for use of a credit card with knowledge that the use is unauthorized.

. Section 4 of Article XXVIII of the Agreement provides in part:
In the event that a member is accused of an offense that would otherwise be subject to court-martial proceedings ..he shall, simultaneous with the receipt of the notice of the offense, be advised in writing that he may elect to challenge that accusation either through a court-martial proceeding or through the grievance procedure....
Because this provision of the arbitration award was vacated by this court at the time the charges were brought against Officer DiRaimo, court-martial proceedings were held without an opportunity to elect arbitration. The Commissioner of the State Police dismissed Officer DiRaimo based on the charges. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. State Conference of State Police Lodges of the Fraternal Order of Police (McCommons), 525 Pa. 40, 575 A.2d 94 (1990), reversed this court's decision and the State Police and the union agreed that anyone subject to court-martial proceedings could elect to grieve the Commissioner’s decision.

. Section 1 of the Agreement directs the arbitrator to determine the issue presented to him by the parties:
The arbitrator shall confine himself/herself to the precise issue submitted for arbitration and shall have no authority to determine any other issues not so submitted to him/her. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties.... This case differs from Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Association (Trooper Betancourt), 159 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 489, 633 A.2d 1278 (1993), where the issue presented to the arbitrator was “Did the State Police have just cause to discipline the grievant for his asserted violation of Field Regulation 1.01 Unbecoming Conduct; if not, what shall the remedy be?’’. In that case, we held that because the arbitrator should have found just cause for discipline for Unbecoming Conduct, the arbitrator was not permitted to consider the remedy. See fn. 16. In this case, the arbitrator was not limited by the issue presented to addressing the penalty only if he did not find just cause for discipline, but, in fact, was specifically directed to determine whether there was just cause for the discharge.