 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Borough v. Tullytown Borough Police Benevolent Association9/29/2003
Tullytown Borough Police Benevolent Association (Association) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County that reversed an arbitrator's award which determined that the matter of the dismissal of Officer Ronald Bainbridge was arbitrable and that suspension rather than dismissal was warranted. The court reversed on arbitrability and did not reach other issues. The Association questions first whether the trial court erred in reversing the award of a grievance arbitrator under the Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, 43 P.S. §§217.1 - 217.10, commonly known as Act 111, where assertedly the arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter the award, the award was within the arbitrator's authority, there were no irregularities in the proceedings and constitutional rights were not violated, and second whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority in addressing the merits of the grievance and directing reinstatement.
On February 4, 1997, the Tullytown Borough Council voted to terminate Bainbridge from his employment as a Tullytown police officer because of his conduct arising from a March 30, 1996 arrest of a motorist for driving under the influence . At that time, the collective bargaining agreement governing Bainbridge's employment contained no grievance or arbitration remedy to a job action, and Bainbridge elected to appeal his termination to the Tullytown Borough Civil Service Commission (Commission). After hearings, the Commission upheld the termination, and Bainbridge appealed to the trial court, which affirmed. However, on February 25, 1999, this Court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court for remand to the Commission for the purpose of affording to Bainbridge a proper pre-termination hearing in accordance with Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Bainbridge v. Borough of Tullytown (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1360 C.D. 1998, filed February 25, 1999) (Bainbridge I). The Court explained that Tullytown had deprived Bainbridge of his right to procedural due process by failing to afford him a pre-termination hearing.
On April 20, 1999, the Tullytown Police Chief mailed Bainbridge a notice that proposed to terminate him effective February 4, 1997 and that offered a pre-termination hearing. In response, Bainbridge filed a grievance pursuant to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Tullytown and the Association that became effective on January 1, 1998 (1998 CBA). On May 4, 1999, Tullytown fired Bainbridge effective February 4, 1997, and the Commission scheduled a hearing. The Association's counsel appeared on May 27, 1999 and stated that Bainbridge would not appeal to the Commission but would seek redress through the grievance he had filed. On May 28 the Commission issued a letter stating that Loudermill notice had been provided and again upholding the dismissal of Bainbridge. He did not appeal from that ruling.
Tullytown refused to participate in the arbitration of Bainbridge's termination, and it petitioned the trial court for a preliminary and a permanent injunction staying arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration Association. The trial court concluded that no collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration provision existed between Bainbridge and Tullytown and decided that it therefore had authority to issue an injunction. On Bainbridge's appeal this Court vacated the injunction order. Tullytown Borough v. Bainbridge (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2327 C.D. 1999, filed September 20, 2000) (Bainbridge II). The Court noted that because Bainbridge was employed as a police officer, disputes concerning his employment were governed by Act 111.
The Court had addressed a s
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|