Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in the case of City of Scranton v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 2305, No. 84 Civil 4812.
William C. Steppacher, with him, Edmund J. Scacchitti, City Solicitor, and William J. Hall, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellant/appellee, City of Scranton.
Edward S. Neyhart, with him, John J. Dunn, Sr., Dunn & Byrne, for appellee/appellant, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 2305, AFL-CIO and Thomas Gervasi.
Judges Rogers and Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 541]
We have consolidated for argument and disposition the appeal of the City of Scranton (City) and the cross appeal of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 2305, AFL-CIO (Union), from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County affirming the award of an arbitrator sustaining a grievance of the union.
The City laid off about twenty employees of its Department of Public Works. Several months later, the city began calling these employees back to work on a day-to-day basis, apparently in the order of seniority. They were paid at a rate of pay equal to that which they had received prior to the layoffs; however, they were denied the fringe benefits they had previously enjoyed. Those of these employees who were union members filed a grievance requesting an order that the City reinstate all of the benefits provided by the collective bargaining agreement (agreement).
The arbitrator described the question as:
Did the City of Scranton violate the terms and provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to provide members of Machinists Lodge #2305, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, all of the benefits provided in the contract when it began to use them on a day to day basis beginning on or about April 24, 1982?
The arbitrator found that the City had violated the agreement and entered an award in favor of the union.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 542]
The City appealed the award, and the common pleas court affirmed in an order which is the subject of the present appeals.
The City's Appeal (No. 1235 C.D. 1985)
The City contends that the arbitrator's award is in error because it does not draw its essence from the ...