# Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'n

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 27, 2007 · 595 Pa. 648

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702949

## Case

- **Full name:** WESTMORELAND INTERMEDIATE UNIT # 7, Appellee, v. WESTMORELAND INTERMEDIATE UNIT # 7 CLASSROOM ASSISTANTS EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION, PSEA/NEA, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 27, 2007
- **Citations:** 595 Pa. 648; 939 A.2d 855; 183 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2480; 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2888
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eakin
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin, Former
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702949

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that public policy is “well defined and dominant[,] ... ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.”
- holding that the essence test clearly does not permit the reviewing court "to intrude into the domain of the arbitrator and determine whether an award is 'manifestly unreasonable' "
- emphasizing that the essence test requires more deference than would a "manifestly unreasonable" standard of review and remanding for consideration of narrow public policy exception
- holding to qualify for the sole exception to the essence test, public policy must be well-defined, dominant, and easily referenced in legal precedent
- stating that court should not uphold arbitrator's award that is against law or public policy

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
I join the Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Castille. While I have previously recognized the precedence of the core functions exception, I too have no firm opposition to its demise. However, I cannot agree to the sua sponte implementation of a public policy exception which was not raised by the parties and on which we have received no advocacy on either side.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702949. Public record. Not legal advice.