Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Philadelphia v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 22

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 23, 2010No. 39 EAP 2008Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice McCAFFERY

Because I believe that the arbitration panel acted within its powers and authority in awarding the relief set forth in Paragraphs 12 and 9A of the arbitration panel’s opinion and award, such award is beyond our narrow certiorari scope of review, and hence beyond any court’s power to alter. I base my conclusion on the indisputable facts that the awards contained in Paragraphs 12 and 9A plainly address “terms and *490conditions of employment” as defined by Section 1 of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.1, and would not force the City, as employer, to commit an illegal act. Thus, I dissent from the Majority…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Washington Arbitration CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  2. Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers' Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Fonner v. Shandon, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Cartwright v. CartwrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Tp. of Moon v. POL. OFFICE. OF TP. OF MOONSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API