[J-94A-D-2010] [MO – Saylor, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
CITY OF SCRANTON,
:
:
:
Appellee
:
v.
:
:
:
FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 60, :
OF THE INTERNATIONAL
:
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS,
:
AFL-CIO,
:
:
Appellant
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ACT :
47 COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF :
SCRANTON, INTERVENORS
:
:
:
CITY OF SCRANTON,
:
Appellee
:
:
v.
:
:
FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 60, :
OF THE INTERNATIONAL
:
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS,
:
AFL-CIO,
:
:
Appellant
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ACT :
47 COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF :
SCRANTON,
:
:
No. 35 MAP 2010
Appeal from the Order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 2314 CD
2007 dated 01/23/09 affirmed as modified
the order of Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 06
CV 3131 dated 10/23/07
No. 36 MAP 2010
Appeal from the Order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 213 CD 2008
dated 1/23/09 affirmed as modified the
order of the Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 06
CV 3131 dated 1/15/08
Intervenors
:
:
CITY OF SCRANTON,
:
:
Appellee
:
:
v.
:
:
E.B. JERMYN LODGE NO. 2 OF THE
:
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
:
:
Appellant
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ACT :
47 COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF :
SCRANTON,
:
:
Intervenors
:
:
CITY OF SCRANTON,
:
:
Appellee
:
:
v.
:
:
E.B. JERMYN LODGE NO. 2 OF THE
:
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
:
:
Appellant
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ACT :
45 COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF :
SCRANTON,
:
:
Intervenors
:
No. 37 MAP 2010
Appeal from the Order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 2322 CD
2007 dated 2/6/09 affirmed as modified
the order of Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 06
CV 2255 dated 10/23/07
No. 38 MAP 2010
Appeal from the Order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 232 CD 2008
dated 2/6/09 affirmed as modified the
order of Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 06
CV 2255 dated 1/15/08
ARGUED: November 30, 2010
CONCURRING OPINION
MR. JUSTICE EAKIN
DECIDED: October 19, 2011
I join the salient analysis of my colleague Justice Saylor.
During argument of this case, counsel candidly acknowledged that of
approximately 25 cities that have “entered” Act 47 and its protections, only a handful
have recovered to the point of leaving the protections of Act 47. The remaining cities
have apparently found a home there; Scranton has been there nearly 20 years.
I do not propose to fault the cities or their leaders for this condition – the crutchlike aid of Act 47 can understandably lead to dependence, and extrication from a state
of dependence can be difficult. However, Act 47 comes with a price, a sacrifice by
many, including the appellants here. When, as here, their sacrifice becomes de facto
permanent, one must remember who is really paying the price.
In Pennsylvania, our first responders have had their ability to strike replaced by
arbitration. The reasons for this are manifest, and arbitration has generally proved a
workable substitute.
However, if Act 47 were allowed to eliminate meaningful
arbitration, unilaterally and permanently eviscerating the ability of workers to adjudicate
legitimate issues, the consequences on many levels would not be acceptable.
I believe Justice Saylor’s reasoning is analytically correct; I also believe that
result is the just one, and join the holding that § 252 does not supersede Act 111
arbitration awards.
Mr. Justice Baer joins this concurring opinion.
