Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

City of Pittsburgh v. FOP

City of Pittsburgh v. FOP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 1, 2016, Argued; May 22, 2017, Decided

No. 18 WAP 2016

Opinion

 [*411]   [**162]  JUSTICE MUNDY

In this discretionary appeal, we consider whether a home rule municipality may amend its home rule charter1 to eliminate mandatory subjects of bargaining as defined by the Police and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act, commonly known as Act 111, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1 - 217.10; the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act ("PLRA"), 43 P.S. §§ 211.1 -215.5; and applicable case law.

Appellant, the Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 ("FOP") is the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the police officers of Appellee, the City of Pittsburgh ("City"), pursuant to Act 111 and the PLRA.

The FOP and the City are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that ran from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014. Section 18(S) of the agreement provides, in relevant part:

If, during the term of this [***2]  agreement . . . the Pennsylvania State Legislature enacts legislation relating to . . . residency requirements for police officers in cities of the second class, the parties may reopen the contract to negotiate and/or arbitrate under these limited conditions. The Panel shall retain jurisdiction  [**163]  to address such issues if agreement cannot be reached by the parties.

Agreement, 1/01/10-12/31/14, at 92.

The City is subject to the Policemen's Civil Service Act (for Cities of the Second Class), 53 P.S. §§ 23531-23540, which prior to October 24, 2012, provided:

A person applying for appointment shall not be required to be a resident of the city at the time of application for original appointment. The person shall, however, be required to become a bona fide resident of the city at the time  [*412]  of the employment, and city residency must be maintained for the entire period of employment.

53 P.S. § 23532 (repealed).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

639 Pa. 406 *; 161 A.3d 160 **; 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1140 ***; 209 L.R.R.M. 3148; 2017 WL 2229859

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Appellee v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, FORT PITT LODGE NO. 1, Appellant

Prior History:  [***1] Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered January 7, 2016 at No. 1228 CD 2014, reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered July 9, 2014 at No. SA 14-000290. Appeal allowed June 20, 2016 at 44 WAL 2016. Trial court Judge: Colville, Robert J., Judge. Intermediate Ct. Judges: Pellegrini, Dan, President Judge, McGinley, Bernard L., Judge, Leadbetter, Bonnie Brigance, Judge, Simpson, Robert E., Judge, Leavitt, Mary Hannah, Judge, Brobson, P. Kevin, Judge, Covey, Anne. E., Judge.

City of Pittsburgh v. FOP, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 129 A.3d 1285, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 36 (Pa. Commw. Ct., Jan. 7, 2016)

CORE TERMS

home rule charter, municipality, residency, bargaining, powers, home rule, police officer, arbitrate, working conditions, rights, political subdivision, residency requirement, modified, charter, employment condition, arbitration award, arbitration panel, limitations, benefits, collective bargaining, employees, asserts, trial court, managerial, statewide, argues, mandatory, prohibits, entity, public employer

Governments, Local Governments, Charters, Home Rule, Duties & Powers, Police Power, Labor & Employment Law, Labor Arbitration, Judicial Review, Second Level Review, Standards of Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Collective Bargaining & Labor Relations, Bargaining Subjects, Employees & Officials, Arbitration Coverage Limits, Administrative Law, Separation of Powers, Legislative Controls, Scope of Delegated Authority, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Legislation, Interpretation