## Facts

- James Taylor, a City of Bradford garbage collector and bargaining-unit member, found a purse containing a large amount of cash while working.
- Taylor turned the purse over to a supervisor but kept the cash; the purse had been reported stolen.
- During a police investigation, Taylor initially denied taking the money, later admitted it, and returned the cash to police.
- The City charged Taylor with violating policies including theft and dishonesty and terminated him after an internal hearing.
- The Union grieved the termination under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) and proceeded to arbitration.
- The arbitrator found Taylor violated the theft policy but rejected other asserted rule violations and interpreted the CBA as not mandating discharge for a first theft offense.
- Relying on mitigating factors (work record, isolated incident, restitution), the arbitrator reduced discharge to a long-term suspension and ordered reinstatement without back pay for the suspension period.
- The City sought to vacate the award; the trial court confirmed it, and the City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration award reducing discharge to a long-term suspension drew its essence from the CBA or exceeded the arbitrator’s authority under the essence test.
2. Whether reinstating a municipal employee who committed theft and initially lied about it violates a well-defined, dominant public policy requiring vacatur of the award.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the order confirming the arbitration award.
- The court held the award drew its essence from the CBA because the arbitrator’s interpretation of the discipline provisions and use of mitigating factors were rationally derived from the agreement.
- The court held enforcement did not violate public policy because no clearly defined legal mandate required discharge, and the award imposed substantial discipline.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s essence test, a labor-arbitration award must be upheld if the dispute is within the CBA and the arbitrator’s interpretation can rationally be derived from the CBA; courts may not reweigh facts or substitute their judgment on the appropriate penalty.
- An arbitrator may apply a contractual “just cause” framework and consider mitigating circumstances when selecting discipline, if that approach is grounded in the CBA.
- The public-policy exception is narrow: an award may be vacated only if it contravenes a well-defined, dominant public policy established by laws and legal precedents, not generalized notions of public interest.
- Absent a specific legal requirement compelling discharge, an award reinstating an employee with significant discipline (such as suspension without back pay) does not, by itself, violate public policy.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an arbitration award that reinstated a municipal employee after theft, concluding the arbitrator acted within contractual authority under the essence test and that no clearly defined public policy required termination rather than substantial lesser discipline.


City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011)