correctness arising from apparent legislative acquiescence in an interpretation of a statute by this Court. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(4). Further, the City distinguishes the State Conference decision, relied upon by the Unions, since the relevant statute referred only to “collective bargaining agreements” and not also to “arbitration settlements” as does Section 252. See State Conference, 525 Pa. at 46, 575 A.2d at 97. The City also believes the Legislature’s swift counter-response to the holding in that case favors its position, and not that of the Unions. The City also references Borough of Ellwood City v. Ellwood City Police Department, 573 Pa. 353, 825 A.2d 617 (2003), as reflecting the subordination of Act 111 to other cost-containment legislation. See id. at 364-65, 825 A.2d at 623-24 (<HOLDING>). The brief submitted by amici for the City
holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that where a collective bargaining agreements terms are clear but the management has engaged in contrary practice for a number of years the words of the agreement must be enforced holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation holding that mandatory statutory pension funding requirements to be enforced notwithstanding any contrary provision of law trumped inconsistent terms of an act 111 collective bargaining agreement holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights