City of Cranston v. Hall
| Decision Date | 23 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-112-M,75-112-M |
| Parties | , 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2765, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,001 CITY OF CRANSTON v. John J. HALL et al. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
The petitioner in this certiorari proceeding is the city of Cranston (the 'city'); one respondent is Local 1363, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (the 'union'), an unincorporated association and labor organization which is the bargaining agent for the city fire fighters; the other respondents are three named individuals who are joined in their capacities as the members of an arbitration board (the 'board') convened under the Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act, G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) chapter 9.1 of title 28 (the 'Fire Fighters' Act'). The litigation centers on the validity of the board's resolution of an issue on which negotiations at the bargaining table had come to an impasse.
Early in 1975, the union and the city began collective bargaining in anticipation of reaching a new agreement to replace the one due to expire on June 30, 1975. Despite extensive negotiations, the parties could not agree on several issues, the only pertinent one being the promotion procedures for high ranking officers of the fire department. With respect to that issue, the city's proposal was to retain the existing procedures which conformed to sec. 14.08 of the city charter. That section provides that vacancies in certain high ranking positions in the fire department be filled by selecting a candidate from among the three rated highest on a competitive examination. This proposal was unacceptable to the union, and its counterproposal was that the existing procedure be modified to provide for the selection of the candidate receiving the highest rating on the examination. The city rejected that suggestion, a principal reason being that it conflicted with sec. 14.08. Neither party would yield, and the unresolved issue was submitted to arbitration, an arbitration board was appointed, and hearings were held, all as provided for in §§ 28-9.1-7; 28-9.1-8, as amended by P.L.1968, ch. 150, § 1; and 28-9.1-9, as amended by P.L.1968, ch. 150, § 2. In due course, the board, in a 2-1 decision, decided that the agreement between the parties should be modified to conform to the union's proposal, and thereafter the city filed this petition seeking a review of that decision.
At the outset the city appears to argue that how a fire fighter shall be promoted is not a bargainable issue but is instead a management prerogative. A brief reference to §§ 28-9.1-2 and 28-9.1-4 of the Fire Fighters' Act will suffice to dispose of that contention. Those sections clearly recognize that fire fighters, although not entitled to strike or to engage in any work stoppages or slowdowns, should not be denied such other well-recognized rights of labor as those of organizing, of being represented by a labor union of their choice, and of bargaining collectively with their employers concerning '* * * wages, rates of pay, hours, working conditions and all other terms and conditions of employment.' Section 28-9.1-4. Construing substantially identical language in the School Teachers' Arbitration Act, chapter 9.3 of title 28, we held that one of the issues on which the school teachers might bargain collectively was promotion procedures. Belanger v. Matteson, R.I., 346 A.2d 124, 136-37 (1975). We perceive no sound reason, nor has any been suggested, why the Fire Fighters' Act should be construed differently.
More central to the city's position, however, is its contention that the charter-including the provision regulating promotion procedures-has the force and effect of a legislative enactment; that sec. 14.08 should govern promotions in the fire department unless and until amended in accordance with art. XXVIII of amendments to the State Constitution, the so-called home rule amendment; and that the board exceeded its jurisdiction by decreeing that the new collective bargaining agreement between the parties include a provision antagonistic to the charter.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreau v. Flanders
...critical fact is that the * * * legislation applies equally to all cities and towns.” Id. at 1178 (quoting City of Cranston v. Hall, 116 R.I. 183, 186, 354 A.2d 415, 417 (1976)). Here, similar to the situation in Marran, the challenged act applies on its face to all cities and towns. In our......
-
Town of North Providence v. Drezek
...Fighters Arbitration Act); East Providence v. Local 850, Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, 117 R.I. 329, 366 A.2d 1151 (1976) (citing Hall to affirm that MPAA and FFAA superceded rule charter); F.O.P. v. Providence, 730 A.2d 17 (R.I. 1999) (recognizing MPAA and FFAA supercede ordinance......
-
PROVIDENCE v. DREZEK
...the interplay between home rule charters and the General Laws, specifically the police or fire arbitration act.2City of Cranston v. Hall, 116 R.I. 183, 354 A.2d 415 (1976) (holding that conflict between city charter and Fire Fighters Arbitration Act (FFAA) must be resolved in favor of FFAA ......
-
29 Sylvan, LLC v. Town of Narragansett
...home rule charter provision.'" Munroe v. Town of East Greenwich, 733 A.2d 703, 708 (R.I. 1999) (quoting City of Cranston v. Hall, 116 R.I. 183, 186, 354 A.2d 415, 417 (1976)). The Supreme Court has noted that "as a general rule, a state law of general character and statewide application is ......