Opinion
No. 2443 C.D. 2008.
Argued: June 10, 2009.
Filed: July 1, 2009.
BEFORE: SIMPSON, Judge; FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge; McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
The Bucks County Detectives Association (the Association) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court), which vacated paragraph seven of an interest arbitration award mandating the County of Bucks (the County) to implement a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP).
The Association is a labor organization as defined by the Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1 — 217.10 (commonly referred to as Act 111) and the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA), Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 211.1 — 211.13. The Association is the exclusive collective bargaining representative for detectives employed by the County, an employer as defined under Act 11 and the PLRA. The County and the Association have been parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements (CBA's), the most recent of which bore a term of January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2006.
In advance of the expiration of this latest CBA, the County and the Association commenced bargaining pursuant to the requirements of Act 111. Nevertheless, the County and the Association were unable to reach an agreement as to the terms of a new CBA. The Association declared an impasse and demanded binding arbitration before a panel of arbitrators as provided by Act 111. A three-person arbitration panel was convened and the matter proceeded with evidentiary hearings on May 14 and 21, 2007. In a statement of issues provided to the arbitration panel, the Association specifically included a request for a DROP.
The three-person arbitration panel consisted of a neutral arbitrator and an arbitrator selected by the County and the Association.
A DROP permits an employee who has achieved the necessary age and years of service for normal retirement to "retire" and begin to receive a monthly pension benefit (payable to an interest bearing account which the employee cannot access) while remaining an active employee and receiving a salary and benefits (without a deduction for pension contributions and without accruing years of service for pension purposes) for a specified period of time, in this case twelve to thirty-six months.
Following the presentation of testimony and documentary evidence, as well as two executive sessions, on February 21, 2008, the arbitration panel issued an award which included in paragraph seven the DROP requested by the Association. The arbitrator selected by the County dissented to this paragraph, noting that a DROP was precluded by applicable state law. The County thereafter filed a petition to review and vacate paragraph seven of the arbitration award with the trial court. In this petition, the County alleged that paragraph seven of the arbitration award, requiring the adoption of a DROP, impermissibly directs it to perform an act beyond its authority and in violation of applicable state law, which is therefore beyond the arbitration panel's power.
By opinion and order dated December 15, 2008, the trial court granted the County's petition and vacated paragraph seven of the arbitration award. In its opinion, the trial court noted that an arbitration panel exceeds its authority when it either mandates an illegal act or grants an award which addresses issues outside the terms of the CBA. Citing City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 595 Pa. 47, 938 A.2d 225 (2007), the trial court also noted that an arbitrator may only direct a public employer to do that which it could otherwise do voluntarily. The trial court found that Sections 7 and 10 of the County Pension Law, Act of August 31, 1971, P.L. 398, as amended, 16 P.S. §§ 11657, 11660, respectively, essentially preclude a DROP as these Sections require all county employees to become a member of and contribute to the County's retirement fund.
More specifically, the trial court found that the DROP was manifestly contrary to these Sections, as it permits an employee to essentially "retire" while at the same time remaining an active employee of the County without making any contribution to the fund. The trial court further found the DROP to be contrary to Section 24 of the County Pension Law, 16 P.S. § 11674, which essentially precludes an active employee from receiving retirement benefits. The trial court noted that the DROP permits an employee to receive his retirement benefit, albeit in the form of a payment into an escrowed account, while remaining an active employee receiving his/her full salary and benefits.
Further, the trial court found that the DROP was not one of the permitted retirement programs that the County was authorized to enact under the County Pension Law. The trial court noted that said Law enumerates only four types of retirement programs that counties are permitted to implement, including superannuation retirement, special early retirement, involuntary retirement and total disability retirement. The trial court indicated that nothing in the County Pension Law authorizes the County to implement a DROP.
In this regard, the trial court rejected an assertion by the Association that Act 111 grants the County blanket authority to implement an interest arbitration award regardless of its potential conflict with state laws governing a municipality. The Association relied on language in Section 7 of Act 111 which notes that an arbitration award acts as a "mandate" to the political subdivision to take the necessary action, including legislative action, to implement such award. Finally, the trial court distinguished the case of City of Lancaster v. Fire Fighters Local Union No. 319, 834 A.2d 676 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (requiring city to implement a DROP program), on the basis that City of Lancaster was organized as a home-rule form of government, whereas the County herein is not. The Association thereafter filed a notice of appeal with the trial court.
As this Court agrees with the trial court's decision and further concludes that now President Judge Susan Devlin Scott's opinion thoroughly discusses and properly disposes of the arguments raised on appeal to this Court, we adopt the analysis in said opinion for purposes of appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order on the basis of the opinion in County of Bucks v. Bucks County Detectives Association (Bucks County, No. 2008-02824-19, dated December 15, 2008).
Subsequent to the issue of this decision, the Bucks County Board of Judges unanimously elected Judge Scott to serve as President Judge of the trial court beginning January 6, 2009.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2009, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court) is affirmed. This Court hereby adopts the analysis in now President Judge Susan Devlin Scott's opinion for the purposes of appellate review and affirms the trial court's order on the basis of the opinion issued in County of Bucks v. Bucks County Detectives Association (Bucks County, No. 2008-02824-19, dated December 15, 2008).