Penn Delco School District Collective Bargaining Agreement

 In addition, as the arbitrator pointed out, in this case, there is a member of the bargaining unit, Mr. Bell, who applied for the position of head coach and was immediately affected by the selection of an uns negotiated member for the position.   Although he did not testify, Mr. Bell was present at the conciliation of the complaint on March 13, 1998.   Id. at 61a-62a.   Accordingly, the arbitrator correctly concluded that Mr. Bell had a persistent interest in the case which found the arbitrator`s interest was not put to the arbitration claim.   Moreover, as the arbitrator found, Mr. Bell`s failure to sign the complaint was rather a technical check and should not be the basis for the refusal of the stated purpose of the appeal procedure.  Accordingly, the arbitrator`s decision is rationally derived from the language of KBA and therefore refers to its nature of the agreement.   Thus, the arbitrator exercised his authority correctly and we will not interfere with his decision. 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 District established based on the Harbor Creek School District v. Harbor Creek Education Association, 536 Pa. 574, 640 A.2d 899 (1994), that the appeal was not arbitral.  Id. The borough stated that the CBA`s claim procedure does not contain a language that includes non-professional employees, and since the position of the football coach is a non-professional position, the case cannot be considered to be the subject of the appeal or arbitration procedure.  Id. In addition, the District found that (1) the complaint was premature of the type presented, since it was filed before any action by the school board in connection with this case;  and (2) the complaint form as presented did not contain the signature of the aggrieved worker and, as such, the complaint could not be dealt with in accordance with the KBA definition of the complaint.  Id.

The school district appealed to the court, which refused to hand down the sentence.   The appeal to the Court concerned whether the Tribunal had an error of law in upgoing the arbitrator`s decision that an appeal to the school district`s occupation of a non-professional athletic director position was materially arbitral.