Court Opinion

ID: 9701322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:15:25.339915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:22.369052
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In Article V of the City of Farrell recovery plan under the subheading titled “Collective Bargaining Agreements”, the coordinator states “[t]here do not appear to be the resources for increases in either base pay or fringes, however they are expressed, in the near future. This will be a harsh reality at the bargaining table for the foreseeable future.” This is a recommendation of the plan coordinator and cannot be violated or there will be a suspension of funding under § 264 of Act 47.
The recommendation in Article V along with the assumption in Article IV, Item 8, which states “[ljabor costs will increase approximately 2/6% each year,” work together to make up a part of the whole recovery plan. Both the assumptions and the recommendations work together to develop a plan that must be followed in order to (1) make the plan and the economic recovery of the City of Farrell work, and (2) receive funding from the Commonwealth. The plan needs to be viewed as a whole and not in it’s individual parts. As a whole, the plan develops a means for the City of Farrell to overcome its great financial difficulties.
In using assumptions such as the 2/6% salary increase, the plan develops a balanced budget, or in the years 1988 through 1990, a small surplus. The 2/6% increase in salaries and benefits along with other expenditures are projected along with revenues. If the revenues do not rise as expected, then there is no room for the 2/6% salary increase and modifications to the plan need to be made, as stipulated in Article IV, which states:
The recommendations are based in part on these assumptions. In the event the assumptions do not materialize *85during the next two years, the City may identify other measures to arrive at a balanced budget. In this case, a revision to the recovery plan should be discussed with the coordinator and submitted to DCA for approval.
Using the assumptions in Article IV, which revealed the narrow constraints of the budget situation, the coordinator made the aforementioned recommendation. I would interpret this as a recommendation, not a meaningless sentence as the majority has done. I believe the coordinator is stating that the projected budget allows for a 2!é% increase in salaries and benefits, but due to the very small margin for error, is recommending that salaries and benefits remain at current levels.
The intent of Act 47 is to help a municipality overcome its great financial difficulties. Obviously, salaries are a large and troubling part of a municipality’s financial concern. Therefore, even though the Commonwealth Court and the majority claim that the plan does not specifically delineate “officer salaries” in the plan, any economic recovery plan that would omit as vital an area as salaries would be incomplete. Therefore, since it is incomprehensible to imagine that employee salaries and benefits would not be covered under the plan, and this is the only section covering such, I would construe Article V of the plan as recommending that salaries and benefits remain at current levels. Because this is a recommendation, the City of Farrell cannot refuse to follow it or its refusal will result in a suspension of Commonwealth funding .under § 264 of Act 47. I would reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court and affirm the decision of the Court oí Common Pleas vacating the Act 111 arbitration award.
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.