The Ohio Township Police Association in Pennsylvania filed a grievance after Ohio Township refused to place a police officer (Officer) on administrative duty under Pennsylvania’s Act 59, which governs the treatment of law enforcement officers experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The grievance arose after Officer reported experiencing serious mental health issues, including communicating with a voice he called “Zoey,” which he described as directing him to harm himself. He also expressed concern that he had become increasingly agitated at work and might “act out” while on duty. Following a meeting with Police Chief Joseph Hanny in January 2023, the Township directed Officer to take leave while it evaluated his condition.
A fitness-for-duty examination conducted by neuropsychologist Dr. Glen Getz initially concluded that Officer posed a risk of harm to himself or others and should take 90 to 120 days off work before being reevaluated. Dr. Getz also cautioned that the officer appeared to be “over-reporting or exaggerating” symptoms relative to individuals with severe psychiatric conditions, possibly because of language barriers or misunderstanding of the evaluation process. The Township placed Officer on short-term disability leave.
In March 2023, a nurse practitioner cleared Officer to return to work. The Township required him to undergo a second evaluation by Dr. Getz, who concluded that Officer did not suffer from PTSD and no longer posed a safety risk. Relying on that opinion, the Township denied the Union’s request to place him on administrative duty under Act 59, reasoning that the statute applies only when an officer is experiencing PTSD symptoms. The Union filed a grievance seeking placement on administrative duty with back pay.
While the grievance was pending, the Township also initiated proceedings to remove Officer from service under the Police Tenure Act, issuing a Loudermill notice indicating that it intended to seek his honorable discharge based on concerns about his fitness for duty. The parties proceeded to arbitration on the Union’s grievance, which referred only to the Township’s refusal to place Officer on administrative duty under Act 59.
After a hearing, the arbitrator concluded that the Township did not violate Act 59. Because the only medical evidence in the record established that Officer did not suffer from PTSD, the arbitrator found that the statutory requirement for administrative duty had not been triggered. The arbitrator therefore denied the grievance. However, the arbitrator went further and also determined that the Township acted lawfully in removing Officer from service by granting him an honorable discharge under the Police Tenure Act.
The Union sought to vacate the award in the Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the honorable-discharge issue. The trial court rejected that argument and upheld the arbitration award, reasoning that the issues were intertwined and that the Union should have anticipated that the discharge issue would arise during the hearing.
The Commonwealth Court reversed in part. Applying the narrow certiorari standard of review applicable to Act 111 grievance arbitration, the Court explained that an arbitrator exceeds his jurisdiction when he resolves an issue that was not submitted for arbitration. The record showed that the only grievance filed by the Union challenged the Township’s refusal to place Officer on administrative duty under Act 59. That grievance did not raise the separate issue of whether the Township could terminate his employment under the Police Tenure Act.
The Court rejected the Township’s argument that the discharge issue was implicitly before the arbitrator because Officer had received Loudermill notices regarding a potential termination. A Loudermill notice, the Court explained, merely informs an employee of a proposed disciplinary action and provides an opportunity to respond; it does not constitute notice that the employee has been discharged. Without a formal termination decision to grieve, the Union could not have submitted that issue for arbitration.
The Commonwealth Court also rejected the argument that the discharge issue was “functionally identical” to the Act 59 administrative-duty dispute. Although both issues involved questions about the officer’s fitness for duty, the statutes operate independently and involve distinct procedures and remedies. Act 59 concerns temporary administrative assignments pending evaluation of PTSD symptoms, whereas the Police Tenure Act governs permanent disciplinary actions such as suspension or removal from service. Because those questions are legally separate, the discharge issue could not be treated as reasonably subsumed within the grievance submitted to arbitration.
Accordingly, the Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by resolving the honorable-discharge issue. The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s order in part and remanded with instructions to vacate the arbitration award to the extent it addressed Officer’s discharge from employment.
Ohio Township Police Association v. Ohio Township, No. 1695 C.D. 2024, 2026 WL 40330 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 7, 2026).