One Word Key in City-Police Court Battle

When “shall” became “may” in a 2012 statute much of the groundwork was laid for the case presently before the state Supreme Court, City of Pittsburgh vs Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No 1.  The Commonwealth Court in January reversed a Common Pleas Court decision upholding a arbitration award that established a residency requirement of 25 air miles from Downtown Pittsburgh (thus making the residency requirement a geographic/distance one, rather than a municipal based one).  That decision was appealed to the state’s highest court. The 2012 amendment led to a 2013 Citywide referendum on maintaining residency requirements and that was followed by the 2014 arbitration award.  The courts have had the issue since then.  “Shall not” probably would have been less murky than “may”. The Supreme Court is deciding on whether Act 111 of 1968’s language on bargaining trumps the amendment to the City’s Home Rule Charter.  The Commonwealth Court held that it did not, but in so doing had to overturn a decision from 2002 the Court made on a similar issue in Wilkes Barre.  That decision said “when Act 111 applies, neither a home rule charter, nor an enactment by a home rule municipality may change the ability to bargain about residency”. In its January decision, the Commonwealth Court stated “…when state law imposed a specific residency requirement before the Civil Service Act was amended [in 2012], that law unquestionably superseded the general Act 111 requirement of bargaining over terms and conditions of employment.  Similarly, because the Pittsburgh home rule charter, which has the force of a state statute, imposes a residency requirement, it also prevails”.