Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of In the Matter of Arbitration between City of Pittsburgh and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 84, Local No. 2719, No. SA 376 of 1981.
Bernard M. Schneider, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellant.
Alaine S. Williams, Kirschner, Walter & Willig, for appellee.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 282]
The City of Pittsburgh questions an order by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing its appeal from an arbitrator's award which directed the city to appoint employee/grievant Pamela Swann, a member of the appellee-union,*fn1 as an Engineering Technician I (ET-I) with back wages.
Swann was one of three applicants for an ET-I position which the city posted in December of 1979. Without making a prior determination as to whether the applicants fulfilled the minimum qualifications, the Assistant Director for the Department of Personnel, who also functioned as the Secretary and Chief
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 283]
Examiner for the Civil Service Commission, forwarded the three applications to the Director of the Department of Public Works with directions to select an applicant and return the material to her. The applicant selected by the director was not a member of the collective bargaining unit; his experience included a summer job with a utility subcontractor -- background which the DPW Supervisor and Director found to satisfy the posted requirements.*fn2
Because she had not received any word on her first application, Swann applied again when, a month later, a second posting for the job appeared, directed to all interested persons and was not restricted to city employees only, as the first posting had been. Although similar, the job requirements were stated more specifically.*fn3 The Assistant Director for the Department of Personnel reviewed the thirty-five applications and concluded that Swann was not qualified.
Swann filed a grievance on the basis that she was not notified of eligibility for the ET-I position before the second posting, which allowed lesser qualified individuals
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 284]
to apply before the list of eligible city employees was exhausted; she requested "[i]nstatement . . . prior to the hiring of any individual applying under the new advertisement." After a meeting with the Director of DPW, Swann amended her grievance; she requested retroactive compensation for an earlier period during which she had voluntarily assumed certain duties normally performed by ET-I's, so that she could learn the position while then working under a designation of Clerk-Typist for the DPW; she also requested immediate instatement in the ET-I position, rescission of her disqualification, and ...