In Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, PSSHE v. Association of PA State College and University Faculty the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed an arbitrator's award reinstating a tenured professor who had been dismissed after allegedly engaging in inappropriate and offensive conduct toward University students while on a spring break trip to Spain.
The arbitrator sustained a grievance over the dismissal, concluding that the professor had not been provided with a "complaint" within the meaning of the cba. The Court rejected the arbitrator's analysis, finding it had no support in the cba. Separately, however, it found that reinstatement of the professor would violate the State's public policy. The Court noted:
Given that the transgressions at issue in the subject grievance are of a sexual nature perpetrated against a student(s) at one of the Commonwealth’s universities within the PASSHE by an individual who was not only a full professor but also a department chair, we must reject the arbitration award on compelling public policy grounds. The clearly established public policy and duty to protect students from sexual discrimination in any form has long been recognized.[fn]
[fn] In rejecting this arbitration award on the additional basis of public policy, we note that the award was rendered in the wake of the events that have engulfed another Commonwealth university within PASSHE for alleged failure to properly heed and respond to prior warnings of egregious sexual misconduct. While the incident in the matter at hand is not of the same nature, it is nonetheless another instance of misconduct of a sexual manner involving someone in a position of trust and responsibility over students at a Commonwealth university.
Independent of its finding that the award did not draw its essence from the cba, the Court found that the award reinstating the Professor with full back pay despite what it believed to be undisputed evidence of misconduct "prevents the University from properly implementing its policy prohibiting such behavior."
In another case, involving the dismissal of a firefighter-paramedic, the Ohio Court of Appeals rejected the public policy arguments of the employer. In its decision in City of North Royalton v. Robert Ulrich, et al. the Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision reinstating the grievant. Grievant had responded to an overdose scene and treated and transported the patient. While initially telling the dispatcher that all drugs and drug paraphernalia had been flushed down the toilet, he subsequently reported to the police that he discovered a packet containing drugs in the ambulance and believed that it had fallen out of the patient's pants. An investigation revealed that in fact grievant had removed the drugs from the scene and placed them in the ambulance. Grievant was dismissed, but an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement without back pay.
The City sought to set aside the award, arguing that reinstatement of a firefighter who falsified a police report was contrary to public policy.
Rejecting this claim, the Court acknowledged that it had previously held that reinstatement of a police officer who falsified a report was contrary to public policy, but held that the same standard did not apply to firefighters. Explaining the distinction, the Court observed:
In recognizing that a clear public policy existed in prohibiting the reinstatement of police officers who falsified reports, the Fourth District specifically emphasized that the statute recognizes that “the police force of a municipal corporation is obligated to ‘preserve the peace, protect persons and property, and obey and enforce * * * all criminal laws of the states and the United States.” … The court further recognized that “honesty is vital to the effective performance of these duties and to ensuring public trust and confidence in the police force.” … These same considerations, however, do not apply to a firefighter–paramedic nor are they delineated under the statute with respect to firefighters.
Thus, while we certainly do not condone dishonesty and recognize that it is disfavored in the workplace, we cannot say that a dominant, well-defined public policy exists that all acts of dishonesty warrant immediate termination of a firefighter– paramedic’s employment. We likewise cannot say that a clear public policy precludes the reinstatement of a firefighter– paramedic who has provided inaccurate written reports or a false witness statement to the police. Accordingly, we find no merit to the City’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to vacate the arbitrator’s award as being against public policy.