claim is properly before the Arbitrator pursuant to both the CBA and the Settlement Agreement, we decline to serve as super-arbitrators; therefore, we do not render a decision on the merits. Additionally, we do not view the Commission’s appeal frivolous. Instead, for the reasons discussed above, we discern merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we decline the Union’s invitation to impose attorney fees. The Commission also claims the Award is contrary to the public policies embedded in PERA, the Fair Share Law and the UAA. Given our disposition of the essence test issue, we need not address the Commission’s arguments asserting this limited public policy exception. Westmoreland Intermed. Unit # 7 v. Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Personnel Ass’n, 595 Pa. 648, 939 A.2d 855 (2007) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Arbitrator’s decision is contrary
recognizing the public interest exception recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine holding an exception to confrontation clause must further important public policy holding that the court of appeals correctly stated the public policy exception but erroneously concluded that the exception did not apply holding to qualify for the sole exception to the essence test public policy must be welldefined dominant and easily referenced in legal precedent