This article explores how Pennsylvania's Act 111 empowers arbitrators to reinstate police officers dismissed for serious misconduct, with limited public oversight, raising questions about transparency, accountability, and community trust.
Pennsylvania Police Arbitrations and the Power of Act 111
Keith Edmonds zapped an unarmed homeless man so many times with his Pittsburgh police-issued Taser that the city paid an $8 million court settlement after the man died.
Aaron Fetty, another Pittsburgh police officer, was accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker while off duty.
Philadelphia police Lt. Marc Hayes texted a pornographic video depicting bestiality to two female subordinates, then asked one to lie to investigators.
Edmonds, Fetty, and Hayes all were fired.
All are one court decision away from being reinstated, over the objections of their chiefs and their cities.
From one end of Pennsylvania to the other, these officers exemplify what critics say is wrong with a potent state law known as Act 111. Unchanged since 1968, the law grants arbitrators immense power to return fired police officers to duty against the wishes of mayors, municipal officials, and police chiefs.
The courts are nearly powerless to overturn an arbitrator’s binding decision except under rare circumstances.
To their unions, the officers are victims who deserve to get their jobs back. The law, they say, ensures the right to due process is followed.
Detractors argue Act 111 has been warped over decades, preventing police leadership from removing bad cops, undermining local authority, and eroding public trust in law enforcement.
David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, observes that arbitration awards send a clear message: “It shows the public that the chief — the head of the police force — does not have the final word, even in the most egregious cases.”
One Pittsburgh lawyer notes the system inherently favors bad cops. Lisa Bennington, representing Fetty’s alleged victim, explained arbitration panels are typically composed of three members — one chosen by the municipality, another by the police union, and a neutral arbitrator who becomes the swing vote. “You’re down to one person,” she said. “Why should one person decide your fate? What about a jury of your peers? That’s why we have a justice system.”
Regardless of perspective, one thing is certain: absent media coverage or litigation, it’s difficult to determine when a police officer is fired and subsequently reinstated by arbitration.
No Public Transparency
No public database tracks details about police officers in Pennsylvania who were fired or disciplined for serious misconduct.
The state’s Labor Relations Board, Department of Labor and Industry, and Bureau of Mediation do not monitor Act 111 cases.
The Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Commission, created in 1974, also has no public records related to Act 111, a spokesman told TribLive.
Attorney Christopher Gabriel states that if a comprehensive data set existed, the case for reform would be clearer. “Almost as soon as grievance arbitration started in the public sector, we've had complaints about it,” he said.
Some officials feel powerless. Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey said, “I believe Act 111 should allow for the termination of officers whose actions violate public trust and established public policy. We should never have a system that undermines community trust and justice.”
Labor unions representing Pennsylvania State Police and officers in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia refused to share case details or declined comment.
Pittsburgh’s online disciplinary reports show 890 actions since 2010 but do not specify how many went to arbitration. Robert Swartzwelder, head of the Pittsburgh police union, estimates about 10% of disciplinary actions are handled by arbitrators, but he did not specify how many involved terminations or were overturned. Only 10 terminations are listed from 2017 to 2019, and none since. Edmonds’ and Fetty’s cases are not detailed in these reports.
Pittsburgh’s Citizen Police Review Board director Elizabeth Pittinger notes officials often know when arbitrators reinstate officers but don’t always disclose that publicly. “The information is out there. It exists,” she said. “We just don’t have public access to it. That’s bad public policy.”
Media law expert Melissa Melewsky confirms this, saying, “We know agencies know what’s going on, but publicly tracking it? No. That burden falls on the individual.”
Pittsburgh police Acting Chief Martin Devine and spokeswoman Cara Cruz declined interview requests.
Behind Closed Doors
Act 111 places arbitrators in charge of resolving police contract disputes in exchange for officers not striking. Their decisions are mostly final and not easily overturned, except in cases of jurisdictional or constitutional rights violations, or irregular proceedings.
Supporters defend the process, claiming it works well and sometimes clears wrongly accused officers or removes politics from decisions. But critics say it’s all behind closed doors, lacking transparency.
For example, Pittsburgh police Sgt. Eugene Hlavac was charged with assault but was acquitted in criminal court and continues working. Civil court found evidence of assault, yet a civil jury acquitted him. Arbitrator decisions like these are rarely scrutinized publicly.
Lawyer Lisa Bennington worries about the opacity, saying, “It’s all behind closed doors.”
Fabricated Lies and Reinstatements
Fetty, who was fired after a woman accused him of sexual assault, was reinstated by arbitration. The city appealed, but the Commonwealth Court upheld the decision. Fetty’s union argued the firing was beyond the contractual time limit, and the court sided with arbitration. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is yet to rule on this case.
This echoes a 1995 case where Pennsylvania State Police reinstated an officer, Rodney Smith, after he threatened a woman with his service revolver during a dispute despite having misdemeanor convictions.
These cases highlight the complicated balance of due process, public safety, and accountability that Act 111 attempts to navigate.
The Edmonds Case and Public Debate
Keith Edmonds was dispatched in 2021 for a bicycle report, encountered Jim Rogers, a homeless man, and used his Taser 10 times over three minutes and 15 seconds. Rogers died the next day. Edmonds was fired, but an arbitrator reinstated him, and the case is at the state Supreme Court.
Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey called efforts to reinstate Edmonds