Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

arbitrationstatuteappealtrialarbitrator
arbitrationappealtrialpleawillarbitratorappellant

Related Cases

O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, 489 N.E.2d 712, 498 N.Y.S.2d 743, 54 USLW 2348
View Case »
James v. Taylor, 62 Ark. App. 130, 969 S.W.2d 672
View Case »
Montgomery v. Clarkson, 585 S.W.2d 483
View Case »
Paloma Inv. Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins, 194 Ariz. 133, 978 P.2d 110, 280 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
View Case »
Herrell v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 491 So.2d 1173, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1461
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Borough of Thorpe v. Jim Thorpe Borough Police Dept., 682 A.2d 73

Facts

The dispute arose after the Jim Thorpe Borough Police Department and the Borough reached an impasse in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement for 1992-1993, leading to binding arbitration. An award was issued on July 6, 1992, which included a provision requiring the return of member contributions to the pension fund. The Borough appealed this award, and the trial court vacated the provision requiring the return of contributions. However, a subsequent amendment to the police pension statute was enacted while the appeal was pending, which mandated the refund of contributions.

Appellant Jim Thorpe Borough Police Department appeals a March 12, 1993 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County which vacated a provision of an arbitrator's award ordering the return of member contributions to the police pension plan.

Issue

Whether the 1995 amendment to the Police Pension Fund Act, which mandates the refund of pension contributions, applies to the arbitration award issued prior to the amendment.

The narrow issue in this police pension fund case is whether a 1995 amendment to the Police Pension Fund Act, effective after a 1993 trial court decision striking part of an arbitration award and while the appeal of that decision is pending with this Court, is determinative of our review of the arbitration award.

Rule

The court applied the principle that changes in law occurring before a judgment becomes final are applicable to pending cases.

Effective June 30, 1995, the General Assembly enacted Act 22 thereby amending Section 6 of what is commonly known as the Municipal Police Pension Law to read in relevant part as follows: If an actuarial study shows that the condition of the police pension fund of any borough, town or township is such that payments into the fund by members may be reduced below the minimum percentages hereinbefore prescribed, or eliminated, and that if such payments are reduced or eliminated contributions by the borough, town or township will not be required to keep the fund actuarially sound, the governing body of the borough, town or township may, on an annual basis, by ordinance or resolution, reduce or eliminate payments into the fund by members.

Analysis

The court determined that the 1995 amendment to the Police Pension Fund Act was applicable to the arbitration award because it was enacted during the pendency of the appeal. The explicit language of the amendment required the return of contributions for agreements or awards made prior to a specified date, which included the arbitration award in question. Therefore, the court found that the trial court's decision to vacate the provision was no longer valid under the new law.

Inasmuch as a party whose case is pending on appeal is entitled to the benefit of changes in law which occur before the judgment becomes final, the amendment now controls our review of the case.

Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision and reinstated the provision of the arbitrator's award requiring the return of member contributions to the police pension fund.

Accordingly, that portion of the court's decision striking Paragraph 4(e) will be reversed and that provision of the Award reinstated.

Who won?

The Jim Thorpe Borough Police Department prevailed in the case because the court found that the subsequent amendment to the Police Pension Fund Act mandated the return of contributions, which reinstated the arbitrator's award.

We will reverse the trial court's decision vacating this provision.

You must be