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.

ROBERT GERIOT v. COUNCIL BOROUGH DARBY. BOROUGH DARBY (03/17/83)

decided: March 17, 1983.

ROBERT GERIOT
v.
COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF DARBY. BOROUGH OF DARBY, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in case of Robert Geriot v. Council of the Borough of Darby, No. 77-1819.

COUNSEL

Peter J. Nolan, for appellant.

Michael A. Paul, Richard, Brian, DiSanti & Hamilton, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 2]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of Robert Geriot against the Borough of Darby. We affirm.

Geriot, a police officer in the Borough of Darby, filed this action in mandamus requesting that the Borough Council be directed to recalculate and pay police wages for 1977. Geriot contends that the basic wage for 1977 should have been calculated to include a cost of living increment paid in 1976, in accordance with the terms of a 1975-76 bargaining agreement. He asserts that the terms of the agreement, which provide for the addition, in 1976, of a cost of living increment to the basic wage, are not negated by a 1977 arbitration award, entered in a collective bargaining dispute over employment terms, which added $300 and another cost of living increment to the "base wage" during 1977. The Borough asserts that the terms of

[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 3]

    the arbitration award exclude the 1976 cost of living increment from any calculation of the 1977 base wage.

Our scope of review in mandamus actions is limited to a determination of whether the court of common pleas abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Rizzo v. Schmanek, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 547, 439 A.2d 1296 (1981). Our Court has delineated the following standards for the entry of a summary judgment:

1) the case must be clear and free from doubt; 2) the moving party must prove that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and 3) the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Bar Association v. Thornburgh, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 88, 93, 434 A.2d 1327, 1329-30 (1981) aff'd 498 Pa. 589, 450 A.2d 613 (1982); see also J. Berman & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 317, 345 A.2d 303 (1975).

The Borough of Darby urges that a genuine issue of material fact arises over the calculation of the basic wage amount for 1977 and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate. Geriot counters that the dispute is not over what the basic amount is, but instead concerns whether the arbitration award or the 1975-76 contract controls its calculation, which is a question of law. The court of common pleas adopted Geriot's view and we agree. The actual basic wage figure is not a fact in dispute for ...


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.