DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge McGINLEY.I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over the grievance and exceeded his authority in fashioning the award, although this is truly a tempest in a teapot.
The majority concludes that the decision to schedule split shift assignments was a managerial prerogative and beyond mandatory bargaining. I disagree. I further disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Township of Upper Saucon v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 530, 620 A.2d 71 (1993) is inapplicable to the present controversy. In Upper Saucon, this Court determined that a shift system change was a mandatory subject of bargaining under Act 111. Here, the Town of McCandless changed the shift assignment of an officer from a four week block to two blocks of two weeks. I believe this change was subject to mandatory bargaining under the CBA.
Second, the majority states that past practice is inapplicable if the past practice in question is not a subject of mandatory bargaining. See South Park Township Police Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 789 A.2d 874 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). Because I believe the shift assignment is a mandatory subject of bargaining, I do not believe the arbitrator exceeded his authority in fashioning the award by looking at past practice.
*1199The arbitrator did not order an illegal act or issue an award that went beyond the terms and conditions of employment governed by Act 111. See Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 19 v. City of Chester, 845 A.2d 230 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004). The arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction because the provision of scheduling is a mandatory subject of bargaining and was contained in the CBA.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the common pleas court and reinstate the decision of the arbitrator.