Pa State Police Collective Bargaining Agreement

NOTE: Cadets are excluded from the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association (PSTA) for collective bargaining. [A] the arbitrator is limited to the interpretation and application of the collective agreement; he is not sitting down to forgive his own brand of industrial justice. It can, of course, seek enthebtic instructions from many sources, but its distinction is only legitimate as long as it is drawn from the collective agreement. If the arbitrator`s words show an infidelity to this obligation, the courts have no choice but to refuse the execution of the sentence. However, I should agree with the majority that, in a given case, the result may vary depending on whether an arbitration award is considered according to the n.o.v. standard on the one hand, or by the strict certification standard for review on the other (see majority 1282); the issue that prevails in this appeal and which has been addressed in an unusual way by the parties. I believe that, for each standard of judicial review, the arbitrator`s sentence should be upheld and, frankly, nothing more German can think of the nature of the collective agreement in question than an arbitrator`s interpretation that particular conduct is “unpleasant behaviour” as stipulated in the national police`s field regulations. Why provide for an arbitration procedure when it is only a question of whether or not the activity on which the charge is charged took place? It is legal that a n.o.v. judgment was entered only in the clearest cases and where no reasonable person could accept that the judgment was inappropriate, which would dispel all doubts in favour of the winner of the judgment. Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment – 511 Authority of Pittsburgh, 489 Pa.

344, 414 A.2d 100 (1980); Buck v. Scott Township, 325 Pa. Superior Ct. 148, 472 A.2d 691 (1984). That is certainly not the case here. The reason, in simple terms, is that arbitration awards under Law 111 are totally inconsistent with arbitration awards under the uniform arbitration act, as this Court of Justice has so clearly stated on numerous occasions. The court has expressly ruled on several occasions that the corresponding standard in Act 111 of appeal arbitration cases is, as in the interests of arbitration, closely certiorari. See z.B. Wilson, 129 Pa.Commonwealth Ct.

Comments are closed.