Jack Soberick began serving in the Lansford Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania in 1996, became Chief of Police in 2016, and retired in 2022. As Chief of Police, his individual employment contract contained three key provisions. The first was a “me-too” clause guaranteeing him any economic or fringe benefits provided to rank-and-file officers through the CBA between the Fraternal Order of Police, Schuylkill-Carbon Lodge No. 13 and the Borough. The second incorporated by reference the Borough’s police pension ordinance, including any future amendments to that ordinance – i.e., any amendments that necessitated by the CBA. Third, his contract provided for a grievance procedure, followed by submission of any disputes to final and binding arbitration.
In 2018, the Borough and the Lodge amended their CBA to include overtime pay as part of pensionable compensation. Although the Borough was expected to revise its pension ordinance to implement that change, it never did so. As a result, when Soberick retired in 2022, the Borough calculated his pension under the still-unamended ordinance, solely based on base salary. The result was a monthly pension benefit approximately $550 lower than it would have been had the CBA’s pensionable overtime provision been applied.
Soberick filed a grievance under his employment contract, asserting that the “me-too” clause entitled him to the same pension calculation as bargaining unit officers. The arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the Borough’s pension ordinance — not the CBA — controlled pension calculations and that its unamended language did not authorize inclusion of overtime. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed, and Soberick appealed.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court agreed that Soberick had standing to pursue his claim but concluded that the arbitration was subject to the narrow scope of review governing common-law arbitration under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Arbitration Act – not the broader “essence test” applicable to grievance arbitration under Act 111, which applies to rank-and-file uniformed officers. The Court explained that common-law arbitration awards may be vacated only for fraud, misconduct, corruption, or other procedural irregularity causing an unjust result. By contrast, Act 111 grievance arbitration permits courts to review whether an award “draws its essence” from the collective bargaining agreement. Because Soberick’s individual contract was outside Act 111 and did not invoke statutory arbitration procedures, the Court’s review was confined to irregularities in the arbitration process, not mere asserted errors in the award.
Applying that standard, the Court found no evidence of fraud or procedural irregularity. The Court acknowledged that the Borough may have breached its contractual obligation by failing to amend its pension ordinance to align with the 2018 CBA but concluded that any alleged legal error did not justify vacating the award. The Court also rejected Soberick’s argument that excluding overtime from his pension calculation impaired his vested pension rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, explaining that no vested right existed in a benefit the Borough had never enacted by ordinance.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the award, noting that while the Borough’s failure to update its ordinance was “unfortunate,” it did not constitute an irregularity permitting judicial intervention.
Soberick v. Lansford Borough, 2025 WL 2268059 (Pa. Cmwlth. Aug. 8, 2025).