HARRISBURG – The state Supreme Court has reversed a Commonwealth Court decision concerning a Berks County police officer who had been terminated for accessing and storing pornographic photos on the job, remanding the case to the lower court with instructions to reinstate an arbitrator’s award.
In September 2016, the Northern Berks Regional Police Commission terminated Officer Charles Hobart, formerly a member of the Berks County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #71 (FOP) bargaining unit, for misconduct.
It chose this action because the Northern Berks Regional Police Department learned that Hobart kept a file folder in his desk containing (1) Explicit pictures of women in different stages of undress, (2) Photographs printed from a police information system, including one of a female colleague, and (3) Directions printed from MapQuest – leading to the revocation of his access to the JNET law enforcement information databases, prior to his termination.
The matter went to arbitration, as the collective bargaining mechanism for police officers and their employers. The arbitrator decided that the Commission did not have just cause to terminate Hobart’s employment, reinstated Hobart, and converted his termination into an unpaid suspension with time served.
The Commission then filed a petition with the Berks County Court of Common Pleas to vacate the arbitration award, which it did – finding that “the arbitrator exceeded his powers by ordering the Commission and the Department to commit an illegal act; and placing a burden on taxpayers and the Department, because Hobart cannot perform the necessary duties without access to the databases in question and others will be required to do his job.”
Hobart’s appeal to the Commonwealth Court led that body to vacate the trial court’s order, and remand the matter with direction that the trial court stay proceedings to allow the Department and Hobart to pursue the possibility of restoring Hobart’s access to the computer databases with the appropriate agencies.
However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court, finding that it did err in vacating and remanding the trial court’s decision, based upon its view that the arbitrator’s actions were illegal.
“No statutory or other restriction prohibits the Commission from reinstating Hobart as a police officer, despite his lack of access to JNET. If Hobart were to apply for a job today, the Commission would have the discretion to hire him even though he cannot access JNET databases,” said Supreme Court Justice Christine Donohue.
“The record here well-documents the importance of JNET access to a police officer’s ability to perform all of the functions typically expected of police officers in the Department. But Hobart’s employment as a police officer by the Department does not violate state law, and in fact given the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission’s exclusive statutory requirements, Hobart’s employment as a police officer is expressly permitted under Pennsylvania law.”
Donohue added the Court takes no issue with the arbitrator’s decision to limit his inquiry to the issue presented in the grievance and the facts known to the Commission at the moment it decided to discharge Hobart.
“In so doing, the arbitrator did not in any respect exceed his powers so as to create a basis for the vacation of the award under the narrow certiorari standard of review. Quite to the contrary, the arbitrator’s exacting focus on the issues presented in the FOP’s grievance petition was entirely proper and clearly in accordance with the limits of his powers as an arbitrator,” Donohue said.
“In this case, the issue submitted for arbitration was whether the Commission had just cause to terminate Hobart’s employment…the arbitrator properly limited his scope to this issue.”
Justices Thomas Saylor, Max Baer, Debra Todd, Kevin Dougherty, David Wecht and Sallie Updyke Mundy joined Donohue’s ruling to reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court and remand the case to that court, with instructions to reinstate an arbitrator’s award.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 53 MAP 2019
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 254 C.D. 2018
Berks County Court of Common Pleas case 2017-14202
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com