ShareThis Page
Pa. Supreme Court denies Pittsburgh FOP appeal of 2014 police contract | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Pa. Supreme Court denies Pittsburgh FOP appeal of 2014 police contract

Bob Bauder
| Tuesday, February 26, 2019 4:36 p.m
805565_web1_ptr-lo-NVheights2-032616
Pittsburgh Police took several people into custody Friday, March 25, 2016 from the corner of Chicago Street and Mount Pleasant Road in Northview Heights.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that denied the Pittsburgh police union’s appeal of a contract awarded through arbitration in 2016.

Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 had appealed an arbitration panel’s 2016 contract award, contending it deviated from the city’s former Act 47 financial recovery plan and that officer salaries were not competitive with those of police officers in suburban communities.

The police union had been seeking to renegotiate the 2015 to 2018 contract to get better wages and benefits. Had the contract been renegotiated with more favorable terms, union members could have been eligible for back pay.

Pittsburgh and the FOP are currently in arbitration after reaching a stalemate in negotiations for a new three-year contract. They are still operating under the old contract that was at issue in the case.

The state released Pittsburgh from Act 47 financial oversight in 2018.

“The city is happy with the Supreme Court’s decision, which affirms what we’ve been saying for years – that the contract followed the state-mandated recovery plan, its salary terms were competitive, and the union’s challenge was a waste of time and money,” said Tim McNulty, spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto.

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth court ruled that the contract conformed to a five-year fiscal plan crafted in 2014 by state financial overseers and denied the union’s request to void it. The FOP appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court and justices upheld the lower court ruling.

FOP President Robert Swartzwelder said the court at least clarified what can and cannot be appealed when a municipality is under state financial oversight.

“Although the FOP was disappointed by the decision, we respect the decision of the Supreme Court because they’ve now made very clear for all bargaining units what is and isn’t appealable when a municipality is under Act 47,” he said.

Swartzwelder previously said arbitrators acted in bad faith by denying the union’s request for provisions that were awarded to other unions in separate bargaining negotiations. He called the contract “arbitrary and capricious.”

Swartzwelder said the FOP is eligible under the old contract to reopen negotiations for the last year of the pact. He said if successful officers could be in line for salary and benefit increases for 2018.

“After this arbitration is over we’re going to file for the reopener for 2018, which is our right,” he said.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, bbauder@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.