Local 850, Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v. Pakey

• Decision Date: 18 May 1970
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO,No. 978-A,978-A
• Parties: LOCAL 850, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,v. Pete A. PAKEY, City Manager of the City of East Providence, et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 730

265 A.2d 730

107 R.I. 124

LOCAL 850, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO v. Pete A. PAKEY, City Manager of the City of East Providence, et al.

No. 978-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 18, 1970.

[107 R.I. 128] Bernard F. McSally, Providence, for plaintiff.

Nathan E. Pass, City Solicitor, for defendants.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Chief Justice.

This civil action was brought by Local 850 of the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 850, seeking to compel the defendant, Pete A. Pakey, City Manager of the City of East Providence, hereinafter referred to as the city, to abide by an agreement as to wages and other benefits awarded the fire fighters by a board of arbitration. It appears that Local 850, as the collective bargaining agent for the permanent fire fighters of the city of East Providence, and the city were unable to reach any agreement while bargaining collectively concerning wages to be paid plaintiff's members and the conditions of employment to govern their employment during the fiscal year beginning November 1, 1969. Local 850 thereupon invoked the provisions of G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 28-9.1-7 of the Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act, so called, and referred all unresolved issues to a board of arbitrators constituted pursuant to the provisions of that act. The board of arbitration rendered an award on October 20, 1969, establishing the wages and working conditions in question. Thereafter, on December 13, 1969, the arbitration board, after hearing allegations by Local 850 that the prior award had been obtained by the practice of fraud upon the board of arbitration by respondent city, amended the award granted in October.

In bringing this action plaintiff, in its prayer for relief, asked the court to confirm the award of the arbitrators as it was amended or in the alternative to amend that award or to issue its writ of mandamus directing defendants to abide by the second award, and then prayed for general relief as follows: 'Grant such other relief in the premises which to this Court, using its equitable power, may seem meet and just.' The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint primarily on the ground that there was a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of Super.R. Civ.P. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted by the Superior Court on January 12, 1970, and thereupon plaintiff moved orally for permission to amend its complaint. This motion was denied, and from these orders plaintiff is prosecuting an appeal to this court.

The prime issues presented in this case are: first, did the trial justice err in granting defendants' motion to dismiss count I of the complaint and, second, did the trial justice abuse his discretion by denying plaintiff's oral motion to file an amended complaint? An examination of the transcript indicates that the trial justice was of the opinion that there had been a failure to state a claim upon which equitable relief could be granted in the complaint. He said in express terms: 'There is no question in my mind that the equity powers of the Superior Court are available to either the city or the firefighters if they feel that an award has been made-has been procured through fraud, but I feel that a Complaint drawn to this effect to void the entire arbitration proceeding must be brought.'

It is the contention of plaintiff that such a specific prayer to vacate the entire award was not necessary in order to enable the court to exercise its equity power. It appears from the contention of plai...