Opinion
November 2, 1983.
Labor — Matters covered by agreements and awards — Unilateral changes.
1. Work schedules cannot be unilaterally changed by a public employer without negotiation when such schedules were the subject of collective bargaining agreements, the terms of which were continued by an arbitration award. [166-7]
Submitted on briefs June 6, 1983, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges DOYLE and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 822 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in case of Borough of Dunmore v. Dunmore Police Department and Dunmore Police Association, No. 81 Civil, 414.
Grievance filed by police against Borough of Dunmore. Arbitrator's award entered in favor of grievants. Borough appealed award to Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. Appeal dismissed. WALSH, J. Borough appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed. Application for reargument filed and denied.
Lawrence A. Durkin, Tellie, Durkin, Weinberger, Murphy Piazza, P.C., for appellant.
Robert H. Sayers, for appellees.
Dunmore Borough appeals a Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court order dismissing its appeal of an arbitrator's award. We affirm.
The Mayor of Dunmore instituted a new work schedule for the Police Department, prompting the Police Association to file an unfair labor practice charge with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. The parties subsequently executed a stipulation-agreement providing for dismissal of the charge and for arbitration of the scheduling dispute. The arbitrator found that work scheduling had been the subject of previous collective bargaining agreements whose terms had been continued by an earlier arbitration award. The arbitrator held that the schedule, therefore, could not be changed without negotiation. Dunmore appealed to the common pleas court, arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that work scheduling was the subject of the previous agreements and was extended by the award. The court rejected this argument and affirmed.
Dunmore now raises the same contention and, following a thorough review of the record and law, we reject it and affirm on the opinion of Judge WALSH at ___ Pa. D. C.3rd ___ (___).
Dunmore also belatedly raised the contention that, "as indicated in [its] statement of facts," the award effectuating the scheduling terms of previous agreements had expired prior to the arbitration here concerned, thereby depriving the arbitrator of jurisdiction. However, Dunmore has not directed us to, and we have been unable to locate, any record evidence to support this contention and it is therefore rejected.
Affirmed.
ORDER
The Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court order in 81 Civ. 414, dated March 17, 1982, is hereby affirmed.