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.

CITY PITTSBURGH v. FRATERNAL ORDER POLICE (01/13/86)

decided: January 13, 1986.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANT
v.
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, FORT PITT LODGE NO. 1, APPELLEE. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, FORT PITT LODGE NO. 1, APPELLANT V. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLEE



Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. City of Pittsburgh, No. SA 844 of 1982.

COUNSEL

Richard J. Joyce, Assistant City Solicitor, with him, D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellant/appellee, City of Pittsburgh.

Bryan Campbell, with him, Anthony C. Busillo, for appellee/appellant, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Barry, Colins and Palladino. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 170]

The City of Pittsburgh (City) and the Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 (FOP) entered into binding arbitration pursuant to Act 111*fn1 in 1983. The City appealed certain provisions of the arbitrator's award to the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, which upheld paragraph nos. 2, 12, and 14 of the award but struck paragraph nos. 10 and 13. The parties cross-appeal to this Court. We affirm the trial

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 171]

    court's decision in paragraph nos. 10, 12, 13 and 14, but reverse in paragraph no. 2.

Our scope of review of an arbitration award under Act 111 is restricted to questions of law and the regularity of the proceedings. City of Erie, Pa. Appeal, 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 245, 459 A.2d 1320 (1983); appeal dismissed, 505 Pa. 505, 481 A.2d 610 (1984).

The City contends that the trial court erred in holding that paragraph no. 2 did not create an illegal agency shop. Paragraph no. 2 provides:

Agency Shop and Dues Check-Off:

(a) No member of the bargaining unit shall be required to become or remain a member of the Union, but any member of the bargaining unit who elects not to join or remain a member of the Union shall be required to pay the Union an amount equal to 75% of the monthly and/or yearly dues which are payable to the Union by members of the Union. (Emphasis added.)

The City argues that a literal reading of this provision makes the payment of dues by non-union members a condition of employment and would require dismissal of non-complying employees, which is contrary to Section 7 of what is commonly known as the Policemen's Civil Service Statute.*fn2 We agree.

An agency shop provision is within the scope of an Act 111 arbitration award. Commonwealth v. State Conference of State Police Lodges, 88 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 356, 489 A.2d 317 (1985). The essence of an agency shop is a requirement that all employees, union and non-union alike, pay a service fee to the union as a condition of employment in order to help defer bargaining and contract administration ...


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.