The trial court relied on bald eagles to overthrow the secretary when it ruled that the case should first be arbitrated. In Bald Eagle, the Supreme Court held that “matters relating to conflicts between a public sector collective agreement and the fundamental legal policy of the Public Sector must first be referred to arbitration for decision, subject to appropriate judicial review of an arbitral award contrary to these guidelines.” Id. at 68, 451 A.2d at 674. School committee members ratified the agreement on Monday, giving union members an average increase of 1.8 per cent per year over the six-year agreement. This means that the highest salary will be $97,613 by 2026 for an employee with a bachelor`s degree. 13 8. Approval of the Hempfield School District Student Discipline Agreement for the academic year, beginning August 24, During the term of the agreement, the student will complete classes through the Landisville Education Center and will adhere to the program rules. XI. Adjournment of the XII Executive Session (if necessary) * New item or amendment 13 of 13 “Although this negotiation process has been long and difficult, we are pleased to have reached an agreement with the district,” Joe Scheuermann, president of the Hempfield Area Education Association, said in a press release. “Given the challenges facing public education today, especially given the past 15 months, as we continue to provide quality education to our children during the pandemic, we are thrilled to have the stability that a six-year agreement offers our community.
The Hempfield Area School District violated applicable contracts by refusing to provide health insurance to retired employees of the Hempfield Area School District Teachers` Bargaining Unit, in accordance with the terms of the agreements between the Hempfield Region School District and the Hempfield Area Education Association. Richland is different from our case and is still the law of this Commonwealth. Richland involved a current employee and determined which unit or subdivision the employee would belong to. Council concluded that a temporary substitute teacher was not part of the bargaining unit covered by the contract. In this case, a retired employee who was and may still be covered by the contract is before this court. He [the arbitrator] pointed out that the agreement does not limit the complaint process to “employees,” but allows “individuals” to file a complaint. Article VIII. In addition, the agreement dealt specifically with pension benefits and referred to `pensioners` in Article XVIII(c) of the agreement. The arbitrator therefore found that Ms. Walter had the right to file a complaint.
Using the gasoline test, the arbitrator dealt with a problem in the terms of the agreement and resolved the problem by applying the terms of the agreement. Clearly, the arbitrator`s decision was rationally derived from the agreement. In this case, although retirees are not part of the current collective bargaining unit, this does not exclude them from the benefits negotiated for them by a previous collective bargaining unit that negotiated a previous collective agreement. If the school district violates a provision of a collective agreement in effect at the time of the retiree`s retirement, the union has the right to file a complaint against the school district on behalf of the retiree, according to the CBA language. Similar to the CBA`s language in Danville, the CBA in this controversy did not limit the complaint procedure to “employees,” but allowed the union to file a complaint for “persons” rather than “employees.” Article VIII. In addition, the CBA dealt specifically with pension benefits and referred to `pensioners` in Article XXIV(B) of the CBA. Therefore, the trial court was correct in deciding that this issue should first be brought before the adjudicator to determine whether existing pensioners were entitled to file a complaint. We first turn to Richland, where our court upheld a decision of the Cambria County Common Pleas Court that upheld a final council order rejecting allegations of unfair labor practices.
The complainant had accused the school district of unfair labour practices for refusing to resolve a complaint in violation of sections 1201(a)(1) and (5) of the PERA. The Commission found that a temporary substitute teacher whose wage dispute formed the basis of the appeal was not a member of a collective bargaining unit covered by the contract. This court ruled that this was an appropriate issue for the board of directors, which an arbitrator did not have to resolve. Our court established section 604 of the PERA: The union filed objections to the secretary`s decision alleging that the school district`s conduct violated the collective agreement (CLC) because the school district had removed the early retirement incentive. The Union also argued that violations of the provisions of the PERA collective agreement were binding arbitrators and that arbitrability issues should first be decided by the arbitrator and not by the board of directors. The union added that the early retirement incentive was not an advantage for people already retired, but an advantage for existing workers who could opt for early retirement […].