Correctional Officers Justin Drexler and Courtney Cornell are employees of the Alleghany County Jail (ACJ) in Pennsylvania. The CBA between the Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union (Union) and the County lays out a process by which COs may be required to fill staffing shortages, at the County’s discretion. There has been a severe and worsening staffing shortage at ACJ in recent years, resulting in more officers being mandated to fill shifts more often. The CBA also includes a provision generally requiring all COs to remain alert and prepared to perform their jobs, and another ensuring that the Union and COs exert “every effort to ensure that all shifts are properly manned at all times.”
Drexler and Cornell were each given one-day suspensions after refusing to report to a mandated overtime shift in April 2022. Just prior to this shift, Drexler had worked four consecutive 16-hour days, and Cornell had worked three consecutive 16-hour days. Drexler had also worked 271 overtime hours in the first quarter of 2022, and Cornell worked an unspecified, but significant number of overtime hours in the same time. The Union grieved, arguing that under these circumstances, the COs were not obligated to accept mandatory overtime due to fatigue, and both cases were consolidated before an arbitrator. The Union argued that the CBA requiring exhausted COs to work overtime would force them to violate the CBA’s requirements that they remain alert and prepared to work, and that they ensure all shifts are “properly manned.”
The Arbitrator sustained the grievances. He explained that the County’s interest in maintaining safe staffing levels at ACJ and the Union’s interest in ensuring the COs obtained adequate rest were both highly compelling. The Arbitrator explained that resolving the dispute required him to make two judgments: First – did the grievants work so hard that they would have been unable to adequately perform their job duties at a mandated overtime assignment? And second – if so, was that an adequate reason for turning down such an assignment? The record established that not only did these COs work several consecutive 16-hour days prior to their refusals to accept mandatory overtime, but also that they regularly worked long hours in the months leading up to the refusal. Given the inherent risk of violence, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievants’ work schedules reduced their ability to competently perform their jobs.
Turning to the second question, the Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the CBA’s requirement that COs ensure that shifts are “properly manned” requires not only that they show up to work, but also that they are “competent to perform the expected job duties.” He acknowledged that his ruling would not clarify what the County should do under these circumstances, as the staffing shortage was persistent and worsening. He held that discipline was inappropriate under these circumstances, where a CO’s fatigue was the result of forces outside of his or her control. Finally, the Arbitrator explained that whether a CO was too fatigued to work a mandated shift was a question to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
The County moved to vacate the arbitration award in state court, arguing that it was not rationally derived from the language of the CBA, and lost. The Court rejected the County’s argument that the arbitration award would allow for COs to refuse mandatory overtime by claiming to be fatigued, because the arbitration award specifically provided that whether a CO was too fatigued to work was a determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. The County appealed the decision to the Commonwealth Court, which again upheld the arbitration award: “the arbitration award was rationally derived from the just cause provision in the CBA, which must permit the Grievants to offer genuine fatigue and genuine concern over their abilities to perform as expected, as a defense to the willful or intentional disregard of a supervisor’s order.”
Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, No. 1122 C.D. 2023, 2024 WL 3687877 (Pa. Commw. Ct., 2024).