Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alllegheny Intermediate Unit v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit Education Ass'n

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 3, 1991No. 351 C.D. 1990Published

1DissentNarick, Senior Judge

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that Pennsylvania law favors the arbitrator’s decision in matters arising out of the interpretation of the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, and that reviewing courts must give great deference to such decisions regarding matters of fact. In Scranton Federation of Teachers, Local 1147, AFT v. Scranton School District, 498 Pa. 58, 444 A.2d 1144 (1982), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:

In labor disputes resolved by arbitration machinery, the less judicial participation the better____ Accordingly, the oft-repeated ‘essence’…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Scranton Federation of Teachers, Local 1147 v. Scranton School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Hixson v. Greater Latrobe School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. McKeesport Area School District v. CicognaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API