Opinion by
Judge Doyle,
The Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 (FOP) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which confirmed an Act 1111 arbitration award allowing the Philadelphia Police Department (Department) to administer a polygraph test to all applicants who wished to transfer voluntarily into the Departments Special Investigations Unit (SIU). We affirm.
On January 31, 1986, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Kevin M. Tucker caused a directive to be sent by teletype advising all Department personnel of the formation of the SIU. The SIU was founded to help fight corruption within the Department, and to pursue major [134]*134investigations involving organized crime, drugs, prostitution, gambling and vice. Paragraph three of the teletype read “[a]mong other considerations for acceptance to the unit shall be the requirement to submit to a polygraph examination and personal interview.”2 Another requirement of the process was the filling out of a questionnaire which was to be verified by polygraph. Shortly after the teletype, the FOP filed a grievance claiming that the directives requirement that all SIU applicants submit to a polygraph test constituted a unilateral change in the FOP members’ conditions of employment, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.3
On February 6, 1986, the FOP also filed a Complaint in Equity seeking a status quo injunction restraining the City of Philadelphia (City) from enforcing the polygraph requirement pending arbitration of the FOP’s grievancé. At the initial hearing on the equity matter, the trial judge advised the parties that a Commonwealth Court decision on polygraph testing was due soon, Marion v. Green, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 210, 505 A.2d 360 (1986), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 514 Pa. 633, 522 A.2d 560 (1987). Consequently, the City agreed to the judges request that the polygraph testing be delayed pending this Court’s decision in Marion.
Two days after our decision in Marion, the City of Philadelphia, at the behest of the Department, proposed the following regulation:
[135]*135Assignment and transfer for uniformed positions within the Police Department in units specifically assigned to the investigation or enforcement of narcotics, vice (gambling, prostitution, liquor), organized crime, intelligence, and internal police investigations may be conditioned upon the satisfactory completion of a polygraph examination at the discretion of the Police Commissioner.
The Department also informed the trial judge at the second hearing in the equity action that it would postpone implementation of the polygraph examinations pending the outcome of arbitration.
On April 17, 1986, a hearing was held before an arbitrator at which both sides presented live testimony, as well as the testimony adduced at previous proceedings in both state and federal court.4 Ultimately, he ruled that there was nothing in the collective bargaining agreement touching upon the establishment of varying criteria when assignments or transfers to special units are being affected. The arbitrator also found that the Department had no duty to bargain regarding voluntary transfers and/or assignments and that the Department and the FOP had not shown that it and the City had, by prior practice, shown any criteria by which voluntary transfers and/or assignments would be made within the Department, or that the polygraph examination was an excluded criterion. Last, and most important, the arbitrator found that the Departments imposition of the [136]*136polygraph requirement under the circumstances did not violate our decision in Marion.5
The FOP then filed a petition for relief under Section 7314 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, 42 Pa. C. S. [137]*137§7314, in the court of common pleas seeking to vacate the award. That court upheld the arbitrators decision and this appeal followed.6
We note initially that the proper scope of review over an Act 111 arbitration award is that articulated by our Supreme Court in the Washington Arbitration Case, 436 Pa. 168, 259 A.2d 437 (1969), where the court held that courts have jurisdiction to review Act 111 arbitration awards in the nature of narrow certiorari. Such review is limited to questions concerning (1) the jurisdiction of the arbitrator; (2) the regularity of the proceedings; (3) an excess in the exercise of the arbitrators powers; and (4) constitutional questions. Id. The continuing vitality of this narrow scope of review was recently reaffirmed in Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. 501, 526 A.2d 315 (1987) where the Supreme Court held the Uniform Arbitration Act standard of review was inapplicable to Act 111 proceedings.
[138]*138The FOP contends that the arbitrator committed “legal error” in holding that the Department could ask applicants for transfer into the SIU to submit to a polygraph examination in the absence, of a Civil Service regulation allowing the Department to do so. We would first like to point out, however, that there is no “legal error” or “question of law” review of Act 111 arbitration awards. See Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. at 513 n. 4, 526 A.2d at 321 n.4. Consequently, we. take the FOP’s argument to be that the arbitrator acted in “excess in the exercise of his powers” in that he .would allow the employer to perform an illegal act, i.e., an act that was not within the authority of the municipality or was prohibited by law. Conley v. Joyce, 482 Pa. 263, 393 A.2d 654. (1978); Washington Arbitration Case.
We note initially that Section 7321 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C. S. §7321, provides:
(a) Offense defined—A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree if he requires as a condition for employment or continuation of employment that an employee or other individual shall take a polygraph test or any form of a mechanical or electrical lie detector test.
(b) Exception—The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to employees or other individuals in the field of public law enforcement .... (Emphasis added.)
Thus, under this statute police departments are legally able to give polygraph tests to police officers as conditions of their employment.
The FOPs argument, then, rests primarily on two court decisions, DeVito, v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia, 404 Pa. 354, 172 A.2d 161 (1961)7 and Marion, as well as á provision of the Phila[139]*139delphia Home Rule Charter (Charter). In DeVito, two officers were dismissed on a number of charges, including a charge related to their refusal to submit to a polygraph test.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion by
Judge Doyle,
The Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 (FOP) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which confirmed an Act 1111 arbitration award allowing the Philadelphia Police Department (Department) to administer a polygraph test to all applicants who wished to transfer voluntarily into the Departments Special Investigations Unit (SIU). We affirm.
On January 31, 1986, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Kevin M. Tucker caused a directive to be sent by teletype advising all Department personnel of the formation of the SIU. The SIU was founded to help fight corruption within the Department, and to pursue major [134]*134investigations involving organized crime, drugs, prostitution, gambling and vice. Paragraph three of the teletype read “[a]mong other considerations for acceptance to the unit shall be the requirement to submit to a polygraph examination and personal interview.”2 Another requirement of the process was the filling out of a questionnaire which was to be verified by polygraph. Shortly after the teletype, the FOP filed a grievance claiming that the directives requirement that all SIU applicants submit to a polygraph test constituted a unilateral change in the FOP members’ conditions of employment, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.3
On February 6, 1986, the FOP also filed a Complaint in Equity seeking a status quo injunction restraining the City of Philadelphia (City) from enforcing the polygraph requirement pending arbitration of the FOP’s grievancé. At the initial hearing on the equity matter, the trial judge advised the parties that a Commonwealth Court decision on polygraph testing was due soon, Marion v. Green, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 210, 505 A.2d 360 (1986), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 514 Pa. 633, 522 A.2d 560 (1987). Consequently, the City agreed to the judges request that the polygraph testing be delayed pending this Court’s decision in Marion.
Two days after our decision in Marion, the City of Philadelphia, at the behest of the Department, proposed the following regulation:
[135]*135Assignment and transfer for uniformed positions within the Police Department in units specifically assigned to the investigation or enforcement of narcotics, vice (gambling, prostitution, liquor), organized crime, intelligence, and internal police investigations may be conditioned upon the satisfactory completion of a polygraph examination at the discretion of the Police Commissioner.
The Department also informed the trial judge at the second hearing in the equity action that it would postpone implementation of the polygraph examinations pending the outcome of arbitration.
On April 17, 1986, a hearing was held before an arbitrator at which both sides presented live testimony, as well as the testimony adduced at previous proceedings in both state and federal court.4 Ultimately, he ruled that there was nothing in the collective bargaining agreement touching upon the establishment of varying criteria when assignments or transfers to special units are being affected. The arbitrator also found that the Department had no duty to bargain regarding voluntary transfers and/or assignments and that the Department and the FOP had not shown that it and the City had, by prior practice, shown any criteria by which voluntary transfers and/or assignments would be made within the Department, or that the polygraph examination was an excluded criterion. Last, and most important, the arbitrator found that the Departments imposition of the [136]*136polygraph requirement under the circumstances did not violate our decision in Marion.5
The FOP then filed a petition for relief under Section 7314 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, 42 Pa. C. S. [137]*137§7314, in the court of common pleas seeking to vacate the award. That court upheld the arbitrators decision and this appeal followed.6
We note initially that the proper scope of review over an Act 111 arbitration award is that articulated by our Supreme Court in the Washington Arbitration Case, 436 Pa. 168, 259 A.2d 437 (1969), where the court held that courts have jurisdiction to review Act 111 arbitration awards in the nature of narrow certiorari. Such review is limited to questions concerning (1) the jurisdiction of the arbitrator; (2) the regularity of the proceedings; (3) an excess in the exercise of the arbitrators powers; and (4) constitutional questions. Id. The continuing vitality of this narrow scope of review was recently reaffirmed in Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. 501, 526 A.2d 315 (1987) where the Supreme Court held the Uniform Arbitration Act standard of review was inapplicable to Act 111 proceedings.
[138]*138The FOP contends that the arbitrator committed “legal error” in holding that the Department could ask applicants for transfer into the SIU to submit to a polygraph examination in the absence, of a Civil Service regulation allowing the Department to do so. We would first like to point out, however, that there is no “legal error” or “question of law” review of Act 111 arbitration awards. See Appeal of Upper Providence Township, 514 Pa. at 513 n. 4, 526 A.2d at 321 n.4. Consequently, we. take the FOP’s argument to be that the arbitrator acted in “excess in the exercise of his powers” in that he .would allow the employer to perform an illegal act, i.e., an act that was not within the authority of the municipality or was prohibited by law. Conley v. Joyce, 482 Pa. 263, 393 A.2d 654. (1978); Washington Arbitration Case.
We note initially that Section 7321 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C. S. §7321, provides:
(a) Offense defined—A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree if he requires as a condition for employment or continuation of employment that an employee or other individual shall take a polygraph test or any form of a mechanical or electrical lie detector test.
(b) Exception—The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to employees or other individuals in the field of public law enforcement .... (Emphasis added.)
Thus, under this statute police departments are legally able to give polygraph tests to police officers as conditions of their employment.
The FOPs argument, then, rests primarily on two court decisions, DeVito, v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia, 404 Pa. 354, 172 A.2d 161 (1961)7 and Marion, as well as á provision of the Phila[139]*139delphia Home Rule Charter (Charter). In DeVito, two officers were dismissed on a number of charges, including a charge related to their refusal to submit to a polygraph test. The officers appealed to the Philadelphia Civil Service Commission (Commission) which upheld the discharge solely on the charges relating to the officers’ refusal to take the polygraph test. The court of common pleas reversed and ordered reinstatement and that decision was affirmed by our Supreme Court. The Court noted in DeVito that:
[N]owhere in the City Charter, the City Ordinances, the Civil Service Regulations, or the Police Department regulations is there a provb sion which authorizes the Police Commissioner or the Civil Service Commission, expressly or by implication, to force a City employee to submit to a polygraph test or authorizes a dismissal for refusal to take such test. For this reason neither the Police Commissioner nor the Civil Service Commission had the authority to require the test nor to discharge appellees for refusal or failure to take the test. It follows that both the Commissioner and the Civil Service Commission exceeded their powers to dismiss for just cause.’
Id. at 359-60, 172 A.2d at 164.
In Marion, a case decided after the enactment of Section 7321, we decided that an officer who had been reinstated by the Commission could not be required by the Department, in the absence of a Civil Service regulation, to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of reinstatement. We rejected in Marion the Department’s argument that the passage of Section 7321 had empowered it to give polygraph tests to officers stating, “[t]he mere exemption in 18 Pa. C. S. §7321, a criminal statute, does not amount to a grant of power, nor does it notify interested parties that the Philadelphia Police [140]*140Department does in fact require the submission to a polygraph test before reinstatement as a standard procedure.” Id. at 216, 505 A.2d at 363-64. This Court also held that DeVito remained the controlling precedent, reasoning as follows:
Although the city has suggested that DeVito has been overruled by the passage of 18 Pa. C. S. §7321, we do not agree. Before the passage of 18 Pa. C. S. §7321, no law. prohibited the use of polygraph tests as a condition of employment or continued employment, and no law expressly permitted officials in law enforcement to require the polygraph as a condition of employment or continued employment. The passage of the provision established a general proscription against the use of the polygraph by employers as a condition of employment, but it merely exempted law enforcement officials from that general proscription. Accordingly, the passage of the provision granted no further authorization to law enforcement officials regarding the use of the polygraph than they enjoyed before its passage.
Id. at 217, 505 A.2d at 364. Accordingly, it is clear from the case law that a police department may not dismiss or refuse to reinstate a police officer for his refusal to submit to a polygraph test, absent a civil service regulation requiring the officer to do so. These cases, however, are not dispositive of a situation involving a voluntary transfer to a special unit of officers already employed.
Additionally, the FOP points to Section 7-401 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, 351 Pa. Code §7.7-401, which provides:
The regulations shall provide for:
(m) Transfer from one position to a similar position in the same class and level of responsibility. . . . (Emphasis added.)
[141]*141The FOP asserts that Section 7-401(m) of the Charter requires that the City promulgate regulations regarding the criteria for transfer, including polygraph examinations. The FOP urges that in light of the cases and this Charter provision the arbitration award should be struck down as illegal. We cannot agree.
In Marion, this Court dealt with a situation where a police officer had a property right to be reinstated under a proper administrative order. Likewise, in DeVito, the discharged officers had a property right created by statute and regulation in retaining their employment. Generally, however, there is no property right inherent in a transfer situation, absent a statute, regulation or contractual agreement creating one. Rossi v. Pennsylvania State Police, 100 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 515 A.2d 120 (1986).
Our decision today also comports with this Courts recent decision in Hatfield Township v. Stanley, 113 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 258, 537 A.2d 63 (1988). In Stanley we held that a first class township could not condition a police officers promotion on the taking of a polygraph examination where this requirement is not embodied in a civil service regulation. Under Section 635 of The First Class Township Code8 a police officer has a right to have the promotion process carried out in conformity with the townships civil service regulations. There is no statutory requirement here, however, that civil service regulations need be enacted for transfers.
The FOP points to Section 7-401(m) as creating such a right and further argues that that Section mandates that the City promulgate regulations establishing criteria for transfers. We disagree. Section 7-401(m) [142]*142merely provides , that the City must promulgate regulations providing for and concerning the specific type of transfer (i.e., from one position to a similar one in the same class and level of responsibility), mentioned in that Section; it cannot be reasonably construed to apply to voluntary transfers into special Department units. Since no property right is involved here, the City was not required to promulgate regulations concerning polygraph testing in this particular context. Here, as the arbitrator noted, the police officers “are being required to take the [polygraph] examination only if they voluntarily determine that they wish to be employed in a special unit within the Police Department,” (emphasis added), and the polygraph examination is merely a precondition to acceptance into the SIU. Thus, it is not unlike a requirement for transfer into a mounted unit that the transferring officer be able to ride a horse or that he or she weigh less than 230 pounds. See Arbitrators decision at 24.
Accordingly, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is affirmed.
Order
Now, July 22, 1988, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.