NCJ Number
96066
Journal
University of Pittsburgh Law Review Volume: 43 Dated: (Winter 1982) Pages: 363-401
Date Published
1982
Length
37 pages
Annotation
Legal interpretations and policy rationle are used to argue that Pennsylvania's 1980 Arbitration Act is inapplicable under a typical arbitration provision in a private-sector collective bargaining agreement and for the most part in public-sector labor arbitration.
Abstract
Pennsylvania's 1980 Arbitration Act sets the legal parameters for the use and practice of arbitration, as well as court handling of arbitration issues. The statute applies to numerous types of commercial and other nonlabor agreements with provisions for dispute arbitration. Arbitration under a typical private-sector collective bargaining agreement normally will be governed by section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act. In those few cases where section 301 is not applicable, the arbitration proceeding is likely to fall under the heading of common law arbitration. The question of whether public-sector labor arbitration is covered by the new arbitration act is more difficult. Proper legal interpretations show that the new act treats labor contracts with political subdivisions of the Commonwealth differently from the treatment of contracts with the Commonwealth government. The preferable interpretation of the new act is that it does not apply to arbitration proceedings under a typical collective bargaining agreement with a political subdivision (e.g., school district, city) which has been negotiated under Act 195; nor should the new arbitration act be viewed as applicable to compulsory labor arbitration proceedings with a political subdivision. A total of 100 footnotes are provided.