Local 732 of the International Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO v. City of Woonsocket

• Decision Date: 04 March 2009
• Docket Number: C. A. 09-947
• Parties: LOCAL 732 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS AFL-CIO v. THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET, BY AND THROUGH ITS MAYOR, SUSAN MENARD IN HER CAPACITY AS PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET AND THE WOONSOCKET CITY COUNCIL
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

LOCAL 732 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS AFL-CIO
v.
THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET, BY AND THROUGH ITS MAYOR, SUSAN MENARD IN HER CAPACITY AS PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET AND THE WOONSOCKET CITY COUNCIL

C. A. No. 09-947

Superior Court of Rhode Island

March 4, 2009

DECISION

MCGUIRL, J.

Local 732 of the International Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO ("Local 732") seek a preliminary injunction asking this Court to enjoin the City of Woonsocket from temporarily laying off of a number of the City's firefighters.

For the reasons set forth in this Decision, Local 732's motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

FACTS

The City of Woonsocket is in an extremely perilous fiscal status. The City of Woonsocket is a mill city of approximately 43,000 residents located on 7.7 square miles in northern Rhode Island.^[1] This distressed community suffers one of the highest unemployment rates in Rhode Island at 11.2% and as of the 2000 U.S. Census had a yearly per capita income of only $16,000.00. The City of Woonsocket employs approximately 350 municipal employees. The employees of the City consist of three basis groups: 133 Fire Department employees, 101 Police Department employees and 114 Municipal employees. This information was provided by the City and was agreed upon by Local 732.

International Association of Firefighters, hereinafter referred to as (Local 732), is the exclusive bargaining representative for all permanent fire fighters employed by the City of Woonsocket. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 404 is the exclusive bargaining representative for all permanent police officers employed by the City of Woonsocket. The third group consists of two unions and non-union employees. The third group (City Hall employees) is not involved in this lawsuit as concession agreements have been reached with the two municipal unions.

The City of Woonsocket Adopted Municipal Budget for fiscal year 7/l/08-6/30/09 is $113,834.717. Of this figure, $62,943.024 is delegated to the Woonsocket Education Department and $50,891,693 for municipal government. In recent months, City officials have determined:

1. The Woonsocket Education Department is running a significant deficit estimated in January 2009 at approximately $1,050,000.00

2. The State has completely eliminated the $3,200,000 municipal general revenue sharing originally budgeted for the City of Woonsocket as well as $416,000 for distressed communities

3. Three land sales the City was relying upon for significant revenue have not been consummated due to the downturn in the real estate market. The total projected lost revenue would have been $1,900,000

4. The City's bond rating is now BBB + two grades above junk status. This rating has repercussions including concern about the projected sale of $65,000,00 in municipal bonds to finance the on-going Middle School Construction Project

The City has been in a cash flow crisis which would have had devastating results. The City has been attempting to negotiate a tax anticipation note since December 2008. Without additional monies, the City would run out of money in March of 2009. The City would be unable to pay its bills and wound end with a negative cash balance on March 30, 2009. (Plaintiff's Ex.1.)^[2]

Faced with significant State revenue cuts, increasing deficits incurred by Woonsocket Education Department, nearly depleted surplus and Charter and State Statutory mandates to decrease expenditures when faced with decreased revenue, the City developed a plan to address the revenue shortfall. The City Plan was aimed at reducing the revenue shortfall through employee layoffs, employee wage and benefit concession agreements, curbside trash pickup fees, use of funds in contingency account, privatization of sewer crew, and the sale of short term anticipation notes.

In late December, 2008, the City determined it had a projected deficit of approximately $4,600,000.

The City administration drafted and submitted a plan to the City Council on January 25, 2009 to attempt to deal with this fiscal crisis. The City Council adopted the plan on February 2, 2009. The plan consisted of the following:

I. Cuts/Reductions in Employee Salaries/Benefits
FY '09	FY '10
- Local 732, IAFF	$585,000	$901,300
- Local 404, IBPO	$568,900	$707,900
- Municipal Local 670	$178,400	$450,600
- Municipal Pro Tec	$107,900	$279,400
- Non-Union Classified/Directors	$132,500	$183,600
II. Privatization of Outside Sewer Crew	$500,000	$500,000
III. Curbside Trash Fees	$240,000	$960,000
IV. White Goods & Use of Contingency Account	$ 95,000	$ 30,000
TOTAL SAVINGS:	$2,407,700	$4,012,800

Significant to the City's proposed budget cuts was the following:

1. Each group of employees is requested to contribute a proportionate share as to each groups total compensation budget.

2. The plan is subject to the states actual revenue cut and would restore employee compensation in a proportionate amount to the actual cut received by the City.

The City negotiated with all four City Unions for a period of five weeks. Multiple proposals were exchanged between the parties. In Late January 2009, with negotiations failing, the City decided it needed to take decisive action because the March 1, 2009 date was quickly approaching. In an attempt to avoid massive layoffs, the City drafted and the City Council passed two ordinances cutting salaries of all City employees by 5% and increasing health care so-shares for all City employees to 15% of the premium of either a family plan or individual plan.

The City continued to negotiate will all unions and on February 9, 2009 reached tentative agreements will municipal employees unions, Local 670 and Local 3853 (Protech) as well as IBPO Local 404. The municipal employee unions, Local 670 and Local 3853 (Protech) agreements were ratified on Thursday, February 11, 2009 and IBPO Local 404 rejected the tentative agreement on Wednesday, February 10, 2009. (Defendant's Ex. K.) However, negotiations continued with the police and fire unions.

On February 6, 2009, all four Woonsocket Municipal Unions filed complaints in the Providence County Superior Court seeking injunctive relief and other relief. The controversy now only involves the Police and Fire Unions and the City. The police action has been held in abeyance by the parties pending the resolution of the Local 732 firefighter action.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

The Woonsocket Fire Department, Local 732 first requested a temporary restraining order preventing the City from reducing the pay of said Union members by 5% and to stop the imposition of a 15% co-payment on health insurance. The matter was conferenced by a justice of the superior court.

During conferences with said Judge, the City indicated since they could not reach agreement on the wage concessions they planned to lay off firefighters between 16 and 60 by sometime around February 23, 2009.

Local 732 then filed a temporary restraining order based on that City's plan regarding layoffs. The parties agreed that the layoff case would proceed before the matter involving pay cuts/co-pays.

On Friday, February 27, 2009, prior to closing arguments on the layoff issue, Local 732 agreed to dismiss or withdraw their request for Court action on the earlier City plan to impose those cuts. The City stipulated that they would not impose the 5% pay cut or require a 15% health care co-payment.

On February 19, 2009, a retired superior court justice heard the request by the Woonsocket Firefighters-Local 732 for a temporary restraining order. Such request was opposed by the City.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered that the Defendant/City was temporarily restrained from reducing the number of firefighters employed by the City below the number required and mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) pending further order of the Court. The matter was assigned under Tuesday, the 24^th of February. The restraining order was to be in effect until Monday, March 2, 2009. This Court on February 27, 2009 ordered that the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until further order of this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An injunction is "an extraordinary remedy." Brown vs. Amaral, 460 A.2d 7, 10 (R.I. 1983). "The primary factors a trial justice must consider in granting a preliminary injunction are a showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff, plaintiff's substantial likelihood of success on the merits, balancing the parties['] interests, and preserving the status quo." King v. Grand Chapter of R.I. Order of E. Star, 919 A.2d 991, 995 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Paolissi v. Fleming, 602 A.2d 551, 551 (R.I. 1992) (mem.)). "An application for [a preliminary injunction] is, of course, addressed to a trial justice's sound discretion . . . ." Coolbeth v. Berberian, 112 R.I. 558, 565, 3l3 A.2d 656, 659-60 (1974).

There are three issues then that a hearing judge must address when deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction. First, the moving party must demonstrate that he or she has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claim at trial. The Fund for Community Progress v. United Way of Southeastern New England, 695 A.2d 517, 521 (R.I. 1997) (citations omitted). The moving party must only make a prima facie case and need not demonstrate a certainty of success. Id. In order to establish a prima facie case, the moving party must present some "amount of evidence that, if unrebutted, is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof on a particular issue." Paramount Office Supply Company, Inc. v. D.A. McIsaac, Inc.., 524 A.2d 1099...