Court Opinion

ID: 9703668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:03:57.19889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.043750
License: Public Domain

*302ZAPPALA, Justice, Concurring and Dissenting.
I wholly agree with the majority’s conclusion that the out-of-class pay claim was not presented in the demand for arbitration and, accordingly, was outside the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. I write separately, however, to clarify my position regarding whether the arbitrator exceeded her authority in ordering the City to assign work to Staff Inspectors and in mandating that the City bargain over the decision to eliminate the rank of Staff Inspector. Under the specific facts of this case, I too would conclude, as the majority does, that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority in ordering “with respect to future job assignments,” that the City “assign IAD Staff Inspector functions to Staff Inspectors.... ” Arbitrator’s Opinion and Award at 30. I believe, however, that the Arbitrator did exceed her authority in ordering the City to “bargain, upon request by the Union, over the decision to eliminate the rank of Staff Inspector.” Id.
Although an error of law alone will not warrant reversal under the narrow certiorari scope of review, an arbitrator’s powers are limited. Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Association (Betancourt), 540 Pa.66, 656 A.2d 83, 90 (1995). He or she may not mandate that an illegal act be carried out; he or she may only require a public employer to do that which the employer could do voluntarily. Id. Furthermore, the award must encompass only terms and conditions of employment and may not address issues outside of that realm. Id., citing Washington Arbitration, 436 Pa. 168, 259 A.2d 437, 442 (1969).
In my view, the arbitrator’s mandate that the City bargain with the FOP over elimination of the rank of Staff Inspector goes beyond issuing a decision concerning terms and conditions of employment.
The management rights clause contained in the CBA exclusively vests the City with the power to make inherent managerial policy and decisions. This clause states:
Matters of inherent managerial policy are reserved, exclusively to the City. Except as specifically addressed in this *303Award and the collective bargaining agreement, matters of inherent managerial policy include, but are not limited to, such areas of discretion or policy as civilianization of bargaining unit member positions, as addressed in the Award, the functions and programs of the City, standards of service, the overall budget and the organizational structure of the Police Department, and the selection and direction of personnel.
Collective Bargaining Agreement at 27, R. 262a (emphasis added).
Because the City’s inherent managerial power was preserved in the CBA, including its power over the organizational structure of the Police Department, the FOP necessarily waived its right to bargain over the elimination of a particular ■rank. Thus, I believe the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in mandating that the City bargain with the FOP over the possible future elimination of this rank.
The arbitrator’s decision regarding the City’s obligation to assign future Staff Inspection work to Staff Inspectors (if that position were retained) clearly encompassed the terms and conditions of employment, since this would impact a particular employee’s job duties. The decision to eliminate the rank of Staff Inspector, however, would have no such impact; especially in light of the fact that, if not eliminated, all future work would have to be assigned to Staff Inspectors. In my view, the elimination of the rank of Staff Inspector would be a pure managerial decision inherently and exclusively within the power of the City pursuant to the terms of the CBA. Thus, in my view, the arbitrator exceeded her authority in mandating the City to bargain with the union in this regard.
Mr. Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.