Penn Delco Collective Bargaining Agreement

The Supreme Court noted that the parties cannot be compelled to settle a dispute unless they have contractually agreed to resolve the issue.   The Supreme Court found that the parties agreed on a timetable for additional salary for extracurricular work.   In addition, the collective agreement provided that qualified collective agreement units should be given priority for the provision of non-school positions and that established secondment procedures be applied to fill vacancies.   Recourse procedures available to professional staff have defined claims as a complaint about the service, interpretation or application of a provision in this Agreement.   The Supreme Court found that while this collective agreement describes how vacancies should be filled in extracurricular positions and sets salary increases for those positions, it is not explicitly interested in the school district`s ability to eliminate those positions. The borough then filed a motion to render the award with the court.2 The District argued in court that the Harbor Creek Supreme Court`s decision had decided that any dispute over the additional position of the contract was not treated in the same way, since it is the head coach`s position, since such a position is a non-professional position.   However, the court dismissed the borough`s application, in accordance with the decision of this court of cranberry Area School District v. Cranberry Education Association, 713 A.2d 726 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), and dismissed the appeal (No. 494 W.D. Alloc).

  Dkt.1998, presented On March 5, 1999) 563 Pa. 621, 757 A.2d 935 (1999).   The court found that after Cranberry, the language of the CBA in the bar case provides a basis for appeal and a basis for arbitration;  in this case, it is not a question of eliminating the Harbor Creek position.   The Tribunal did not consider whether the arbitrator duly established that the association was privileged under the CBA to file a claim to be appointed to an out-of-service position for a member of the bargaining unit as a contractual right, nor did the court raise the arbitrator`s remaining arguments.   This call from the region was followed.  With respect to the remaining district issues raised in this appeal, we conclude that the arbitrator correctly established that: (1) the decision of Arbitrator Charles Halpin in Re Matter of the Arbitration between Penn-Delco Education Association and Penn-Delco School District was replaced by Section 10, paragraph 8 of the CBA;  and (2) the language of Article 10, paragraph 8, is not merely a sign based on the history of the parties` negotiations.