Photo: Shutterstock

Luzerne County acted prematurely when it appealed a determination that a grievance filed by the union representing the county's assistant district attorneys needed to be arbitrated, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.

The unanimous decision from an expanded seven-judge panel sent the case, Luzerne County v. Teamsters Local 401, back for a full decision by the arbitrator.

The case stemmed from a grievance the union filed protesting an employee's termination, and the Commonwealth Court's ruling dealt with whether the county had the ability to appeal the arbitrator's holding that it had jurisdiction over the matter.

Although the county had contended that arbitrating the issue conflicted with the County Code, Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon determined that the county appealed the arbitrator's decision too early, and instead had to wait until after the arbitrator rendered a decision on the merits before the courts could review the matter.

“As clearly established precedent indicates, courts generally must await the final decision of the arbitrator before undertaking review,” Cannon said. “Moreover, the issue of arbitrability can be challenged by way of petition to vacate the final decision following the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.”

The decision reversed a ruling from the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which had waded into the issue—although the common pleas court likewise determined that the county's challenge needed to proceed through arbitration.

According to Cannon, the union represents both assistant district attorneys and assistant public defenders in the county, and the collective bargaining agreement at play in the dispute spanned from January 2014 through December 2018. Cannon said that in March 2016, the Luzerne District Attorney's Office notified the employee—who was not named in the opinion—that he had been terminated. The letter said that, under Section 1620 of the County Code, the office had the “unrefuted authority” to reprimand, suspend or terminate its employees.

The union then filed a grievance on behalf of the employee, challenging his termination. The office responded that it did not consent to arbitration, arguing that an arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue.

After the union filed a charge of unfair labor practice with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, Luzerne County, which was the employer, agreed to a bifurcated arbitration process, where there would be one phase on the question of whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction and a second phase on the merits.

The arbitrator held a hearing on jurisdiction, and issued a decision in February 2018, holding that the grievance was arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement.

Luzerne County appealed to the common pleas court, and the court reviewed the merits of the jurisdiction question.

According to Cannon, the court applied the essence test to the issue and concluded that the arbitrator's award logically flowed from the collective bargaining agreement.

Cannon, however, determined that the court's decision to wade into the issue was reversible error.

“The trial court was unable to evaluate the county's petition because the county's appeal to the trial court was not permissible at that procedural stage of the case,” Cannon said.

Koff, Mangan, Vullo & Gartley attorney Scott Gartley, who represented Luzerne County, did not return a call seeking comment.

Richard Goldberg of Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn, representing the union, declined to comment.