Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in the case of City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, No. 3145, February Term, 1988.
Ralph J. Teti, Chief Deputy City Solicitor, for appellant.
Anthony J. Molloy, Jr., Mozenter, Molloy & Durst, for appellee.
Judges Craig, Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 626]
The City of Philadelphia (Appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 (FOP). We affirm.
Appellant and FOP were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which provided for the arbitration of grievances concerning contract violations, disciplinary suspensions of eleven (11) to thirty (30) days, demotions, and discharges. See Article XIX, section A(1) of collective bargaining agreement. FOP filed a grievance on behalf of Angela Young (Grievant), a police officer employed by Appellant. The grievance arose when Grievant was discharged from her employment as a result of an off-duty altercation with two other uniformed police officers and a supervisory officer. During the altercation, which occurred on June 3, 1985, Grievant struck one of the officers in the face and kneed him in the groin. In addition, Grievant directed profane and abusive language toward the supervisory officer.
On June 7, 1985, Grievant was ordered to report to the Police Department's Internal Affairs Division, at which time she was arrested and charged with disorderly
[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 627]
conduct, simple assault, and aggravated assault.*fn1 Grievant was given a copy of the arrest warrant, read her Miranda rights, and was provided with a written notice of suspension for thirty (30) days with intention to dismiss. On June 13, 1985, Grievant was served with a formal notice of intention to dismiss based upon her off-duty conduct as well as repeated violation of departmental rules and regulations.
The grievance filed by FOP proceeded to arbitration;*fn2 the arbitrator determined that Grievant's conduct warranted employment-related discipline. However, the arbitrator went on to conclude that Grievant should not have been discharged from her job. Accordingly, the arbitrator ordered that she be reinstated to her job with seniority, but without back pay or other lost benefits. Appellant then filed a petition for review of the arbitration award with the trial court. By order dated April 8, 1988, the trial court dismissed Appellant's petition for review and confirmed the arbitration award.
On appeal to this court, Appellant presents only one issue for our review: whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by modifying the discipline imposed upon Grievant once the arbitrator found that Appellant established that Grievant ...