Town of N. Kingstown v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters

• Decision Date: 10 May 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 2013–66–Appeal, 2013–44–Appeal.,s. 2013–66–Appeal, 2013–44–Appeal.
• Parties: TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1651, AFL–CIO et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

65 A.3d 480

TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN

v.INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1651, AFL–CIO et al.

Nos. 2013–66–Appeal, 2013–44–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 10, 2013.

Daniel K. Kinder, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Marc B. Gursky, Esq., for Defendant.

ORDER

This litigation stems from a labor dispute between the Town of North Kingstown (the town) and the North Kingstown Firefighters, Local 1651, International Association of Firefighters, AFL–CIO (the union). After neither party timely requested interest arbitration for the 2011–2012 contract year, the town unilaterally implemented an ordinance which significantly changed the firefighters' wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.

On December 14, 2012, a hearing justice of the Superior Court issued a lengthy decision, in which he granted the town's motion to stay interest arbitration with the union for the 2011–2012 contract year, issued related declaratory relief, and also issued an unrequested mandatory injunction, which directed the town to “ ‘unring the bell’ * * * as to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment [and to] go back to the state that existed pre-unilateral implementation.” An order to that effect entered on February 5, 2013. Thereafter, at the town's request, the hearing justice entered final judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.¹

As part of its appeal, the town first moved for a stay in the lower court on February 6, 2013, which was denied by the hearing justice in a bench decision that same day. In accordance with Article I, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure,² the case then came before this Court, as a duty matter, in which the town moved for a stay of the hearing justice's order and the subsequent Rule 54(b) judgment, pending an appeal. On February 7, 2013, the duty justice issued an order temporarily granting the stay pending further consideration thereof by the full Court at its conference scheduled for February 14, 2013. The issuance of that stay was also conditioned on the parties' agreement to continue discussions concerning their labor dispute.

Following that conference, on February 18, 2013, we issued an order, again temporarily continuing the stay and directing the parties to submit the above-referenced Rule 54(b) judgment to the Court because it had not accompanied the town's motion to stay. That order further directed the parties to continue with their negotiations until consideration by the full Court at our conference scheduled for March 21, 2013.

In the interim, the parties entered into appellate mediation, which ultimately proved unsuccessful. Following our conference on March 21, 2013, we then issued an order assigning the motion for a stay to our oral argument calendar for April 30, 2013.

In Narragansett Electric Co. v. Harsch, 367 A.2d 195, 197 (R.I.1976), we held that this Court will not issue a stay unless the moving party “makes a ‘strong showing’ that (1) it will prevail on the merits of its appeal; (2) it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; (3) no substantial harm will come to other interested parties; and (4) a stay will not harm the public interest.” This Court's rule governing motions to stay is modeled after Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As such, this Court looks to federal cases for guidance with respect to the decision whether to grant a stay. David A. Wollin, Rhode Island Appellate Procedure, § 8.3 at 8–5 (West 2004). Although all four of the above-referenced factors should be considered, “[they] are not prerequisites that must be met, but are interrelated considerations that must be balanced together.” Service Employees International Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 343 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.1991)).

In its motion to stay, the town argues that all four of these factors have been met, and therefore this Court should grant its motion. We agree. We briefly address each of the factors in turn.

First, the town has made a strong showing that it will prevail on the merits of its appeal. The hearing justice likely erred in issuing the following mandatory preliminary injunction: “By February 11, 2013, the [t]own is ordered to reinstate wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment that exi[s]ted pre-unilateral implementation[ ], i.e. prior to March 11, 2012.” ³ At this stage, we deem the issuanceof this injunction to be improper for several important reasons: (1) neither party requested it; ⁴ (2) it directly contravened this Court's well-settled precedent established in Warwick School Committee v. Warwick Teachers' Union, Local 915, 613 A.2d 1273, 1276 (R.I.1992), in which we stated that “the Superior Court does not have original jurisdiction of the question to determine what, if any, agreement is in force between [management] and [a] union” and may not require the parties to enter into any particular agreement; and (3) it was ordered absent the requisite findings ⁵ and without notice to the town, as required by Rule 65(a)(1) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the union urges this Court to instead characterize the hearing justice's preliminary injunction as supplementary relief based on a declaratory judgment (and therefore somehow proper), this alteration in nomenclature is unavailing.

We balance that strong showing of success on the merits with the other three factors— whether the town has demonstrated irreparable harm, whether the union will not suffer substantial harm, and whether the public interest will not be harmed. In our opinion, these other factors are more equivocal. However, because “ ‘[t]he sine qua non * * * is whether the [town] [is] likely to succeed on the merits,’ * * * the issuance of [the] stay depends on ‘whether the harm caused [to the town] without the [stay], in light of the [town's] likelihood of eventual success on the merits, outweighs the harm the [stay] will cause [the union].’ ” Acevedo–Garcia v. Vera–Monroig, 296 F.3d 13, 16–17 (1st Cir.2002) (quoting Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir.1993) and United Steelworkers of America v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir.1987)).

Thus, because the town has demonstrated a strong showing of success on appeal, it need not make as strong a showing of irreparable harm. See Acevedo–Garcia, 296 F.3d at 16–17. In this regard, the town has adequately demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. The town argues that it will be unable to recover the funds paid to the firefighters during the period of the mandatory preliminary injunction, if, on appeal, this Court holds that the town had the right to implement the changes outlined in its unilateral ordinance.⁶ Althoughpursuant to G.L.1956 § 28–14–24(d),⁷ the town, as an employer, is not precluded from recovering any overpaid funds to the firefighters, it is our opinion that the town's ability to actually recover any of those funds is doubtful at best.

Similarly, the town has also sufficiently demonstrated that the union will not suffer substantial harm if the stay is granted. A granting of the stay essentially maintains the status quo between the parties since the implementation of the ordinance in ...