Opinion
Argued February 4, 1976
March 24, 1976.
Schools — Collective bargaining agreement — Public School Code of 1949, March 10, P.L. 30 — Conflicts with statutory provisions.
1. Provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between school employes and a school district are unenforceable when they conflict with provisions of the Public School Code of 1949, Act 1949, March 10, P.L. 30, dealing with the same subject. [168]
Judge ROGERS filed a dissenting opinion which was substantially as follows:
1. A school district may properly agree to provide sabbatical leave benefits greater than those provided in the Public School Code of 1949, Act 1949, March 10, P.L. 30. [168]
Argued February 4, 1976, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT.
Appeal, No. 1348 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in case of Cumberland Valley Education Association v. Cumberland Valley School District, No. 126 December Term, 1974.
Petition for declaratory judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County to enforce sabbatical leave provisions of collective bargaining agreement. Provisions held unenforceable. SHUGHART, P.J. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Gerald E. Ruth, for appellant-petitioner.
Richard C. Snelbaker, with him Martson and Snelbaker, for appellee.
Edward A. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania Department of Justice.
The present appeal concerns the validity and enforceability of the sabbatical leave provision of the collective bargaining agreement between Cumberland Valley Education Association, Appellant, and Cumberland Valley School District, Appellee.
The controversy arose when two employees of the School District applied for sabbatical leave at full pay for one-half of the 1974-1975 school year under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. These applications were denied by Appellee on the ground that the sabbatical leave provision of the collective bargaining agreement was in conflict with the sabbatical leave provision of the Public School Code of 1949. We have carefully scrutinized the record before us and conclude, as did the court below, that the sabbatical leave provision of the collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable insofar as one may receive more than one-half of his regular salary. President Judge SHUGHART has most ably presented both the facts and the law in his opinion below and for these reasons we adopt his opinion, which can be found at: 25 Cumberland Law Journal 203 (1975).
Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P. S. § 1-101 et seq.
Affirmed.
I dissent. If a school district may by a collective bargaining agreement bind itself to submit to arbitration the propriety of dismissing a temporary professional employee, despite The Public School Code's express commitment of this power to the discretion of the Board of School Directors, surely a district may by the same means confer on its teachers sabbatical leave benefits greater than those provided for in the Code.
Board of Education v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local No. 3, ___ Pa. ___, 346 A.2d 35 (1975).