Section 7311(b) will prevent a Board of Arbitrators from exercising its jurisdiction to modify or correct an award. Our determination of whether defects in the notice requirements are fatal must address both the timeliness and content of the notice. This Court has previously waived strict conformance to the notice provisions under the Uniform Arbitration Act, so we proceed under the premise that absolute conformance is not required. We conclude, therefore, that timely notice was given by the Township’s arbitrator to the PBA within nine days of the Award. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 7311(b). If the notice was timely provided, a failure to comply with the content requirements of a notice will not necessarily preclude jurisdiction. See e.g., In re McElhatton, 729 A.2d 163, 166 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (<HOLDING>). In Lautek Corp. v. UCBR, 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 79,
holding that making a nonfrivolous allegation is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction holding that an incorrect caption under pa rap 904 is insufficient to dismiss action holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra