Legal Opinion · Dissent

Davis v. Chester Upland School District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 19, 2001No. 4 M.D. Appeal Docket 2001Published

1DissentSaylor, Justice

The summary of argument presented in Appellees’ brief proceeds as follows:

Whether a party subject to a collective bargaining agreement is required to utilize the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement to litigate a work related issue depends upon whether the party is seeking to vindicate contractual or statutory rights.

The mandatory arbitration provisions of Section 903 of the Public Employes Relations Act, (“PERA”) apply only to “disputes or grievances arising out of the interpretation of the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.” The claim in this case does…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Bald Eagle Area School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Interstate Brands Corporation v. Bakery Drivers & Bakery Goods Vending MacHines Local Union No. 550, International Brotherhood of TeamstersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  4. Fowler v. Town of SeabrookSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API