Background
The Borough of Sharon Hill discharged a public-works employee after a coworker complained of sexual harassment. An arbitrator found that the employee made sexual comments on at least three occasions and violated the Borough’s anti-harassment policy. The arbitrator nevertheless concluded discharge was excessive because sexual banter was common, the Borough had not provided training, the employee had no prior discipline, and progressive discipline was not followed.
The award reinstated the employee with back pay and imposed only a documented verbal warning. The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas confirmed it. The Borough appealed under the narrow public-policy exception to Pennsylvania’s highly deferential review of public-sector labor awards.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court reversed and vacated the award. Review ordinarily honors an arbitrator’s interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement. But a court must refuse a remedy that compels an employer to violate a well-defined, dominant public policy grounded in law and precedent. Pennsylvania has such a policy against workplace sexual harassment.
The decisive point was the arbitrator’s own factual finding that repeated sexual comments occurred and violated policy. Reinstatement with back pay and only a verbal warning did not adequately vindicate the anti-harassment policy. The court distinguished cases involving a finding that harassment did not occur and decisions approving substantial unpaid suspensions.
The panel did not announce that termination is mandatory in every harassment case. A meaningful lesser sanction may satisfy public policy depending on the conduct and findings. This award failed because its minimal consequence was incompatible with the repeated misconduct the arbitrator found.
Key Takeaways
- The public-policy exception to labor-arbitration finality is narrow but applies when the awarded remedy itself violates a dominant policy.
- Pennsylvania’s policy against workplace sexual harassment is well defined and legally grounded.
- Courts defer to an arbitrator’s factual findings, including findings that harassment occurred.
- Public policy does not always require discharge, but discipline must meaningfully respond to the established conduct.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives Pennsylvania public employers and unions a clearer remedial boundary. An arbitrator retains latitude to account for training failures, workplace culture, comparative discipline, and an employee’s record, but cannot reduce repeated proven harassment to a consequence that effectively nullifies the governing policy.
For challenges to awards, the focus should remain on the ordered remedy and the arbitrator’s accepted findings—not on relitigating credibility or asking the court to choose its preferred penalty.