110 days before the beginning of the fiscal year 2011, September 12, 2010, as required by Section 3 of Act 111. Andreozzi’s June 8, 2011 letter, stating that the parties agreed to resolve the remaining issues by arbitration, cannot constitute proper written notice of arbitration for the fiscal year 2011 because it was dated more than 5 months after the start of the fiscal year 2011. Because the Union failed to timely provide written notice of arbitration containing specifications of issues in dispute to the Borough and serve it upon the Borough Council president, the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to award the Borough police officers wage increases for the fiscal year 2011. See City of Phila. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 564 Pa. 290, 768 A.2d 291, 296 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Plymouth Twp. Police Dep’t v. Plymouth Twp.
holding that the issue of whether contract which contained arbitration agreement was illegal should be properly decided by arbitrator not court holding university grievance committee hearing was not an arbitration proceeding even though hearing had significant characteristics of arbitration without substantial evidence to support an arbitration agreement holding that the arbitrator was without jurisdiction to consider an issue which was not included in the written notice of arbitration and was added on the first day of the arbitration hearing holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action