Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of Neshaminy School District v. Neshaminy School Service Personnel Association, No. 77-6905-04-1.
Deborah R. Willig, with her Richard Kirschner, Markowitz & Kirschner, for appellant.
Miriam Reimel, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Blatt and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish.
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 263]
The Neshaminy School Service Personnel Association, exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of service personnel employed by the Neshaminy School District, appeals a Bucks County Common Pleas Court decision setting aside an arbitration award*fn1 based upon a grievance filed by George Pearce.*fn2 We affirm.
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 264]
Pearce, a helper in the District's Buildings and Grounds Maintenance Department, sought a job being vacated by a retiree in the Purchasing Department. The job was posted for bidding purposes as "temporary" on May 17, 1976 and as "permanent" on June 14, 1976, in conformity with the collective bargaining agreement. Although Pearce properly bid upon the first posting, the District was faced with a major budgetary crisis and scheduled no interviews. The vacancy was again posted on June 23, 1976 for a "Shipper-Receiver (Driver)." On June 30, 1976, the School Board eliminated both the retiree's former Shipper-Receiver job and a non-bargaining foreman's job in the Purchasing Department. However, the job was filled by the non-bargaining occupant of the eliminated Purchasing Department foreman job. Pearce's grievance, unresolved to his satisfaction at the District level, was submitted to arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement.
After hearing evidence and arguments, the Arbitrator denied Pearce's request for promotion:*fn3
Plainly, the elimination of the Shipper-Receiver (Driver) job was an action of the District with adequate justification, considering its financial problems. The 'advantage' of a possible promotion to the Leader's job was also properly denied the grievant since the District had authority under the contract to select the
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 265]
' best qualified' bidder in its judgment. [section 9-5.2] Quite plainly, it would require something more specific than a generally worded clause such as 9-11 [9-8] to overcome the strong rights of management regarding job selection. . . . (Emphasis and explanation added.)
but determined that the use of a non-bargaining Manpower person in the new leader position "deprived the bargaining unit of driving responsibilities which would have been available to the bargaining unit had this person not been used," having the effect of "depriving Pearce of 'compensation or advantage' as referred to in Section 9-11 ...