The borough argues that the South Sudan court has ruled that section 1142 of the school code requires nothing more from the borough than the payment of the minimum wages it sets. Mourners in southern Tioga had been placed on the wrong foot in the payroll plan due to work interruptions in the landkreis, and according to appropriate information, the county placed mourners at the right level of pay for the upcoming school year. Although the school district accepted in the arbitration that mourners had been underpaid for many years, in violation of the collective agreement of the parties and the terms of the school code, the arbitrator rejected the grievors` request to reimburse the salary and upheld the court. 2. An arbitrator may take due account of current practice in the following circumstances: 1) to clarify ambiguous language; 2) implement the general language that defines only one general rule; 3) to modify or modify an apparently clear language to which the parties have probably renounced; and 4) to create or prove a separate, enforceable condition of employment that cannot be inferred from the explicit language of the agreement. County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, 476 Pa. 27, 381 A.2d 849 (1977). The Tribunal then found that the finding that victims were entitled to recognition for their long replacement experience was not manifestly inappropriate and found that the arbitrator relied in part on cases where long-term substitutes were found to be members of the bargaining unit. The court rejected the borough`s argument that the holding company at Southern Tioga Educ.
Ass`n v. Southern Tioga Sch. Dist., 668 A.2d 260 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995), petition denied for the granting of the claim, 544 Pa. 665, 676 A.2d 1203 (1996), which excludes the granting of a refund solely on the basis of the provisions of the school code. Finally, the Tribunal found that the issues relating to compensation and the placement of steps under the terms of the agreement included and concluded that there was not enough evidence to convince them that the arbitrator`s interpretation of the agreement was manifestly inappropriate.