Providence Teachers Union v. Providence School Board
Decision Date | 27 January 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 97-386-Appeal.,97-386-Appeal. |
Parties | PROVIDENCE TEACHERS UNION v. PROVIDENCE SCHOOL BOARD. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Richard A. Skolnik, Providence, for plaintiff.
Michael E. Civittolo, Providence, for defendant.
Before WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
This case arose from a dispute over the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into between the defendant, Providence School Board (board), and the plaintiff, Providence Teachers Union (union). The board appeals from a Superior Court judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the union and denying its motion to vacate the award. Both parties were ordered to appear and show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided. None having been shown, we proceed to determine the appeal at this time.
This case concerns three Providence School Department teachers with minor children who, prior to their retirement, had opted for family-plan comprehensive medical coverage. The teachers were notified, however, that upon reaching the age of sixty-five, the family-plan coverage no longer would be fully paid, and that they would have to select either another health-care coverage, or carry the family-plan coverage at their own expense. The retired teachers notified the union of this situation, and on January 20, 1995, the union filed a grievance on behalf of the retired teachers that the board was "in violation of [the CBA] in that the `Student Rider to Age 26' is not available to retirees who have attained the age of 65 and have eligible dependent children."
This matter proceeded to arbitration where both parties agreed that the issue of arbitrability would be bifurcated and decided prior to a hearing on the merits. On April 4, 1997, the arbitrator issued an award, which found "[t]he grievance with respect to former employees who have retired from the Providence School Department is arbitrable." Shortly thereafter, the union filed a petition in the Superior Court to confirm the award, and the board moved to vacate the award. On June 18, 1997, a Superior Court trial justice confirmed the award and denied the board's motion to vacate. The board filed a timely notice of appeal and we now vacate the arbitrator's award.
It is well settled that generally "`[a]bsent a manifest disregard of a contractual provision or a completely irrational result, the [arbitration] award will be upheld.'" Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers v. State Department of Corrections, 707 A.2d 1229, 1234 (R.I.1998). However, as we have previously stated:
State Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals v. Rhode Island...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cranston v. Ri Laborers' Council Local 1033
...award "absent a manifest disregard of a contractual provision or a completely irrational result * * *." Providence Teachers Union v. Providence School Board, 725 A.2d 282, 283 (R.I.1999) (quoting Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers v. State Department of Corrections, 707 A.2d ......
-
DMS Properties-First v. Scott Associates
...612 A.2d 517 (1992); see also State v. State Police Officers Council, Iowa Supr., 525 N.W.2d 834 (1994); Providence Teachers Union v. Providence Sch. Bd., R.I.Supr., 725 A.2d 282 (1999); Thomas W. Ward & Assoc., Inc. v. Spinks, Fla. Ct.App., 574 So.2d 169 (1990); Alphagraphics Franchising, ......
-
W. Warwick Hous. Auth. v. RI Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
...94, A.F.S.C.M.E., AFL-CIO, Local 2409 , 925 A.2d 939, 944 (R.I. 2007) (brackets omitted) (quoting Providence Teachers Union v. Providence School Board , 725 A.2d 282, 283 (R.I. 1999) ). "A court therefore may not reconsider the merits of an award despite allegations that it rests upon error......
-
W. Warwick Hous. Auth. v. RI Council 94
...AFL-CIO, Local 2409, 925 A.2d 939, 944 (R.I. 2007) (brackets omitted) (quoting Providence Teachers Union v. Providence School Board, 725 A.2d 282, 283 (R.I. 1999)). "A court therefore may not reconsider the merits of an award despite allegations that it rests upon errors of fact or on a mis......