Falls Twp. v. Police Ass'n of Falls Twp.

1

Falls Township, Appellant v. Police Association of Falls Township

No. 503 C.D. 2023

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

May 10, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

SUBMITTED: April 11, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge Emerita

Falls Township appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County denying the Township's petition to vacate arbitration award and affirming the grievance arbitration award rendered pursuant to the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act (Act 111).^[1] In the award, the arbitrator determined that the Township's discharge of Grievant Stephanie Metterle, was not supported by just cause and reduced the discharge to a 30-day suspension. We affirm.

As summarized from the Arbitrator's award, the facts are as follows. Grievant worked as a police officer for the Township for approximately ten years until her October 20, 2020 discharge for an alleged second violation of Section 103.175 of the Falls Township Police Department Code. The Code addresses Conduct Unbecoming an Officer in the form of "[r]epeated violations of Department Rules &Regulations and/or any other course of conduct indicating that a member has little or no regard for his/her responsibility as a member of the Police Department." Jan. 5, 2022 Arb. Award at 1-31; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 14a-44a. The Township's impetus for the discharge was its determination that Grievant made false statements in her March 2019 complaint to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) by alleging that she had been a member of the multicounty Major Incident Response Team (MIRT) but had been removed in favor of a male officer.^[2] Past misconduct included a 30-day suspension in 2012 for an off-duty fight and a 10-day suspension in 2018 for falsifying records by submitting overtime slips listing herself as "off" while she was out testifying when, in fact, she was working a modified-duty day shift. Id. at 19-20; R.R. at 32a-33a.

Before the arbitrator, the parties stipulated to the following issue: "Whether the Township had just cause for the discharge of Grievant? If not, what shall the remedy be?" Id. at 2; R.R. at 15a. Following hearings held on July 21 and August 16, 2021, the arbitrator rendered the following award:

The discharge was not supported by just cause. The discharge is reduced to a thirty (30) day suspension. The Township is ordered to reinstate the Grievant to her former position; restore her seniority; and make her whole for any loss of wages (minus the 30-day suspension), benefits, and other emoluments of employment flowing from the discharge. The Township is ordered to adjust the Grievant's disciplinary records to reflect the altered discipline.

Id. at 31; R.R. at 44a.

On appeal, the trial court denied the Township's petition to vacate arbitration award and affirmed the award. The Township's appeal to this Court followed. When reviewing appeals from Act 111 grievance arbitration awards, our Supreme Court has held that "[t]he narrow certiorari scope of review limits a reviewing court to questions regarding: (1) the jurisdiction of the arbitrators; (2) the regularity of the proceedings; (3) an excess of the arbitrator's powers; and (4) deprivation of constitutional rights." City of Phila. v. Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge No. 5, 677 A.2d 1319, 1422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) [quoting Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers' Ass'n (Betancourt), 656 A.2d 83, 85 (Pa. 1995)].

Before this Court, the Township argues that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by impermissibly requiring the Township to violate the clear mandates of its disciplinary code where the only available penalty thereunder should have been dismissal. In addition, the Township maintains that the arbitrator's penalty reduction thereby lowering the agreed-upon standard of maintaining the highest moral compass of policing violated (1) Article 30 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), prohibiting unilateral reform of the CBA; and (2) Article 2, Section 2 of the CBA, the parties' agreement that "[t]he Department of Police and the individual members of [Police Association of Falls Township] PAFT . . . are to be governed by the highest standards of honor, integrity and dedication in all their public and personal conduct in order that the Department . . . and the individual members of PAFT may merit the respect and confidence of the general public it serves." Art. 2, Sec. 2 of the CBA between the Township and PAFT, Jan. 1, 2013-Dec. 31, 2017 at 2; Original Record (O.R.) at 23.^[3]

The Township's position is without merit. As this Court has acknowledged: "[T]he arbitration process allows arbitrators to modify disciplinary penalties and fashion appropriate awards based on the specific facts of a given case." In re Melamed, 287 A.3d 491, 500-01 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (emphasis in original) [quoting Cnty. of Allegheny v. Allegheny Cnty. Prison Emps. Indep. Union, 244 A.3d 873, 882 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020)]. Notably, the parties in the present case stipulated that the issue before the arbitrator included the appropriate remedy. Jan. 5, 2022 Arb. Award at 2; R.R. at 15a. In addition, mindful that the arbitrator considered Article 2 of the CBA,^[4] his determination that Grievant's statements in her PHRC complaint were false did not dictate that he find just cause for the discharge.

In addressing the specific facts of the present case, the arbitrator considered the effect of management fault on an arbitrator's ability to reduce discipline. See id. at 31; R.R. at 44a. In so doing, he painstakingly outlined the witnesses' testimony and his respective credibility determinations. As an initial matter, he noted the parties' agreement that a MIRT detail was assigned to the 2018 Philadelphia Eagles Super Bowl Parade. Id. at 4; R.R. at 17a. Upon Grievant's learning that three Township police officers had been sent to Philadelphia as part of a MIRT detail and that she was more senior than one of them, Grievant asserted that she should have been given the opportunity to work the parade detail and submitted a request for the overtime that would have been due had she done so. Id.

Notwithstanding the fact that Chief Wilcox tasked then-Lieutenant Whitney, now Chief Whitney, to determine whether Grievant was a member of MIRT and, therefore, entitled to overtime, Lieutenant Pletnick processed the overtime slip signed by Sergeant Belinsky and Grievant received the requested overtime payment before Whitney concluded his investigation. Id. at 6; R.R. at 19a. "Pletnick indicated that, since Belinsky had signed it, 'that was good enough for him.'"^[5] Id. Ultimately, the Township concluded that Grievant had never been a member of MIRT. See id. at 4-7; R.R. at 17a-20a.

Given Whitney's experience with Grievant, Whitney decided to clarify which officers were in MIRT and the requirements for an officer to be included. Id. at 6; R.R. at 19a. After discussions with Lieutenant Pennington, the assistant team commander for the Bucks County MIRT, Whitney was left with the impression that MIRT team operations were much more relaxed than special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team operations. Consequently, Whitney sent out an April 10, 2018 memorandum listing active members of MIRT and advising all other officers that they were ineligible for MIRT activities. In part, the memo provided: "If you are not on this list, you are not part of MIRT and not eligible for any MIRT activities . . . . If you were formally [sic] on MIRT, please turn in all of your MIRT equipment to [Lieutenant] Ward." Id. at 14-15; R.R. at 27a-28a. Because Grievant was not on the list that Pennington provided to Whitney, she was not on the list of active members. Id. at 6-7; R.R. at 19a-20a. "Pennington acknowledged on cross that the MIRT leadership relies upon the individual departments to notify MIRT of changes in membership status." Id. at 9; R.R. at 22a.

Upon receiving the April 2018 memorandum listing active MIRT members, Grievant expressed surprise that she nonetheless had been paid overtime for the Eagles Parade. She emailed Whitney and asked whether she was being removed from MIRT. He advised her to talk to Ward if she wanted to be on MIRT. Grievant "testified that she did not contact [] Ward because, in a conversation with Whitney, he advised her that it might be better if she concentrated on her accident reconstruction duties and her good work with traffic tickets and arrest on patrol." Id. at 18; R.R. at 31a. Grievant acknowledged that Whitney advised her that, from what he had learned, Grievant had never been on MIRT. Id.

In March 2019, Grievant filed a complaint with PHRC. Pertinent here, she alleged in paragraph 12 that she was removed from MIRT in February 2018 and replaced by a male member of the team. In addition, she alleged that Whitney "informed her that she had never been on MIRT despite the fact that she had previously undergone MIRT training and had worked on MIRT details." Id. As noted, the Township discharged Grievant in October 2020 for making false statements in her PHRC complaint pertaining to MIRT.

After rendering credibility determinations and weighing the relevant evidence of record, the arbitrator concluded that Grievant knew the falsity of her assertions that she was removed from MIRT and replaced with a male member. Id. at 30; R.R. at 43a. In support, the arbitrator noted the fact that Grievant was never advised that she was on MIRT, never engaged in the five days of core training required of new team members, never received equipment or a MIRT identifier, and never registered as part of the Everbridge Notification System...