The Pennsylvania State Police terminated Trooper Andrew Zaborowski on May 10, 2024. At the time of his discharge, Zaborowski had not yet completed his 18-month probationary period. The Pennsylvania State Troopers Association (PSTA) grieved the termination anyway, contending that regardless of his probationary status, Zaborowski was a member of the bargaining unit from his first day and was entitled to the procedural rights guaranteed by the CBA before any disciplinary action was finalized. The PSTA did not challenge the merits of the termination or seek reinstatement. Instead, it alleged a straightforward violation of Article 26 of the CBA.
The PSTA claimed that the State Police failed to provide Zaborowski with any of the pre-disciplinary protections afforded to all troopers. Specifically, the grievance stated he was denied an administrative interview, notification of the inquiry, union representation, a pre-disciplinary conference, a Disciplinary Action Report, and an opportunity to address the department disciplinary officer. He was also not provided with any information from the investigation prior to his termination.
The Commonwealth initially engaged with the grievance process. It denied the grievance in a letter on September 20, 2024, but confirmed a hearing date of October 29, 2024, before Arbitrator Robert Barron. The parties agreed to “bifurcate” the proceeding, meaning the arbitrator would first decide the threshold issue of whether the grievance was even arbitrable, given Zaborowski’s probationary status.
The situation changed abruptly when the PSTA issued subpoenas for documents and the appearance of the State Police Commissioner for the arbitration hearing. The Commonwealth’s counsel argued these subpoenas went beyond the limited scope of the arbitrability hearing. In response, just days before the scheduled hearing, the Commonwealth informed the PSTA it would refuse to process the grievance to arbitration and would not attend the hearing. The hearing was cancelled.
The PSTA filed an unfair labor practice charge, leading to a hearing before a Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board Hearing Examiner.
The Commonwealth’s defense rested on a 2000 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Upper Makefield Township v. PLRB. There, the Court held that a probationary police officer was an at-will employee with no right to appeal a dismissal under Act 111, the law governing police and firefighter collective bargaining.
The PSTA, however, argued that the legal landscape had evolved. It pointed to the Court’s subsequent decision in Gehring v. PLRB, which clarified that while probationary officers do not have a property right in continued employment, they are not excluded from Act 111’s coverage. The Gehring Court stated that “termination restrictions and grievance procedures available under a collective bargaining agreement may extend to probationary officers only upon explicit prescription.”
The PSTA argued that the parties had done exactly that: explicitly bargained for provisions that cover probationary troopers. The Hearing Examiner agreed.
Article 26 of the CBA, titled “Probationary Period,” provides that during the 18-month probation, a trooper may be dismissed without “the grievance procedure.” However, other sections of the same article, titled “Rights,” grant all troopers specific pre-disciplinary rights, such as union representation, notice, and a meeting with a commander.
“The parties in the instant matter have indeed negotiated such an express provision in the CBA covering probationary employes and their access to the grievance procedure,” the decision stated. By refusing to arbitrate, the Commonwealth unilaterally interpreted this bargained-for agreement: “Once it did so, the Commonwealth may not unilaterally interpret that collectively bargained-for agreement and must submit any dispute over its interpretation to an arbitrator.”
The Examiner also emphasized the narrow nature of the grievance. It was not an appeal of the dismissal, but a challenge to the alleged deprivation of pre-termination procedures: “The grievance is specifically limited to the alleged deprivation of Zaborowski’s pre-disciplinary rights.”
The Commonwealth was ordered to cease and desist from refusing to bargain and to take affirmative action, which primarily consisted of one clear directive: “Immediately process the Zaborowski grievance to arbitration.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 57 PPER ¶ 17 (PLRB 2025).