Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP v. CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT (12/03/73)

decided: December 3, 1973.

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Award of the Board of Arbitrators in case of In the Matter of the Arbitration between Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Township and Cheltenham Township Police Department, American Arbitration Association Case No. 14-39-0939-72. Transferred from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, January 18, 1973.

COUNSEL

Samuel H. High, Jr., with him Walton Coates and High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel, for appellant.

Stanley M. Shingles, with him Fineman & Fineman, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by President Judge Bowman. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Bowman

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 349]

For two successive years, in 1971 and 1972, collective bargaining between Cheltenham Township in Montgomery County and its police officers was unsuccessful, requiring the issues in dispute to be submitted to binding arbitration as prescribed by the Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, 43 P.S. § 217.1 et seq. (Supp. 1973-1974), commonly referred to as Act No. 111. Portions

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 350]

    of the 1971 award were challenged by the township, which are the subject of our opinion in Cheltenham Township v. Cheltenham Police Department, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 360, 301 A.2d 430 (1973).

However, collective bargaining for the year 1972 reached an impasse and was arbitrated prior to our decision concerning disputed portions of the 1971 award. In this appeal, transferred to us by the Supreme Court as was the prior appeal, most of the challenged portions of the 1972 arbitration award cover the same issues in dispute in the prior appeal and our decision in the first appeal disposes of such issues.

One new issue arises out of the 1972 arbitration award which was not a subject of the 1971 award. One other subject of both the 1971 and 1972 arbitration awards also requires further comment in light of our first decision in Cheltenham and subsequent developments.

One of the issues producing an impasse in the 1972 collective bargaining process and submitted to binding arbitration concerned the practice of using police vehicles to pick up and deliver police officers to their homes incident to going on and off duty. The township insisted that this practice be discontinued. It was submitted to the arbitrators among other issues and the arbitration award directed that the practice be continued. This subject was a new issue in the 1972 collective bargaining process because one of the disputed issues resolved by the 1971 award (and approved by us in our first opinion in Cheltenham as a proper subject of collective bargaining and ultimate binding arbitration) was elimination of a residency requirement as a condition to employment provided the police officer resided not more than four miles from headquarters. Although the "record" in this appeal does not reveal it, both parties at oral argument agreed that at

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 351]

    the present time all police officers of the township reside in the township, a fact we believe to be a relevant and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.