Luzerne County Assistant DA Union's Grievance Sent Back to Arbitration
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.
July 11, 2019 at 01:30 PM
3 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 minute readJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
Trending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250