Court Opinion

ID: 9752060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:32:27.260398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:05.936707
License: Public Domain

PELLEGRINI, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority that the arbitration decision denying the grievance of the Austin Area Education Association from the Austin Area School District’s (School District) unilateral decision to reduce by one grade the pay of two teachers does not draw its essence from the Agreement but for a different reason.1 I would hold that the School District is estopped from asserting that this raise was improper. As the School District’s brief forthrightly points out:
Early in November, 1989, the Association’s negotiator met with the School District’s negotiator to review the memorandum of agreement and salary schedule, in addition to a spreadsheet showing specific salaries for each member of the bargaining unit, for the term of the agreement, 1989-1993.2
Later in the month of November, the chief negotiator for the Association met with Superintendent Philp to review the salary schedule and spreadsheet [containing the two step-*649raises for the two teachers]. Superintendent Philp was not satisfied with what she saw and contacted the School District’s chief negotiator, who advised her that she had to accept what was agreed upon. Superintendent Philp stated at the arbitration hearing that she then called the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSEA) and was told, in her words, “If the chief negotiator has agreed to the schedule you then must live with it.” However, the PSEA advised her to include an indemnification clause in the agreement. The indemnification clause was included in the tentative agreement at a meeting held December 1, 1989.
The School District knew that this was the proposal and its Superintendent realized the raises might be improper and secured protection through an indemnification clause in the Agreement. The School District, when it signed the Agreement, agreed that the two teachers were going to receive raises that they were otherwise not entitled. Accordingly, it is estopped from asserting otherwise.

. For an explanation of the "essence test”, see Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Police Troopers’ Association (Trooper James Betancourt), 159 Pa. Commonwealth 489, 633 A.2d 1278 (1993).

. It is undisputed that additional pay is not awarded for years of service.