Same sex marriage, timeliness of a grievance and election of benefits

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has denied the appeal of the Gateway School District seeking to overturn an arbitrator's award allowing a retired teacher to add his spouse to his medical benefits. Gateway School District v. Gateway Education Association

Grievant had retired in June of 2013 after more than thirty years service. While he had been in a same sex relationship for more than seventeen years, he was not allowed to add his partner to his retirement health care benefits. At that time neither the cba nor Pennsylvania law recognized same sex marriages. As a result, grievant elected single coverage. In 2014, after a federal district court in Pennsylvania found the failure to recognize same sex marriages unconstitutional, grievant married has partner. He then requested the School District add his spouse to his retirement health insurance coverage. The District refused, noting that at the time of grievant's retirement the cba had not recognized same sex marriages, and relying on what it claimed was its long standing practice of not allowing changes in a retiree's medical benefits even if the retiree remarried or married for the first time after retirement.  Grievant brought this issue to the teachers union, and a grievance was filed in January 2016.

The grievance was pursued through the grievance/arbitration process and an arbitrator ultimately upheld the grievance. The arbitrator rejected the School District's claims that the grievance was untimely and that past practice supported its decision, The arbitrator concluded that grievant "must be granted the same retiree benefits as other married couples at the District's expense. This would be as if they had elected the same married couple coverage at the time of retirement."

The School District unsuccessfully sought to vacate the award in Common Pleas court, and the Commonwealth Court has now affirmed the lower court's refusal to set aside the award.

Concerning the timeliness issue, the Court noted that the decision on this procedural issue was within the authority of the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator's award  "interpreted the deadlines specified [in the cba] .... to run from such time as it was possible for the Grievant [to] act." The arbitrator had observed that the decision on whether to pursue the grievance took place "in an ever changing legal environment until same-sex  marriage finally became law," and, moreover, the School District had not raised the timeliness issue during the grievance process. Given the limited scope of review of an arbitrator's award, the Court found no basis to overturn that decision. The Court also rejected the School District's argument that the arbitrator had improperly refused to accept the District's past practice argument. The arbitrator had considered but rejected the past practice claim, noting that the change in the law regarding same sex marriage represented a change in the conditions upon which the practice had been based.

Finally, the Court rejected the School District's challenge to the award as contrary to the "impairment of contracts" provision of the US and Pennsylvania constitutions, concluding that the change in circumstances caused by changed constitutional determination by the courts did not alter the parties' contract. The changing legal environment "merely changed Grievant and his partner's legal right to be married, and affected the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA  ... ."

Accordingly the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, effectively enforcing the award.

Arbitrator Fabian's award can be found here.