Rhode Island Public Telecommunications Authority v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Bd.

Decision Date02 December 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-268-M,93-268-M
Citation650 A.2d 479
Parties150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2500 RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY et al. v. RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al. P.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
OPINION

LEDERBERG, Justice.

This case came before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari to review the judgment of the Superior Court that affirmed a decision of the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board (board). The board had ruled that two "associate producer" positions existed within the state's public television station, and that those positions should be included within the station's certified collective-bargaining unit. For the reasons stated below, we grant the petition and quash the judgment of the Superior Court.

FACTS ON THE RECORD AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The petitioners in this case are the Rhode Island Public Telecommunications Authority (hereafter the Authority or channel 36), the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, and the Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education. These three agencies employ professional and administrative employees who are organized for collective-bargaining purposes within a single bargaining unit, the Rhode Island Department of Education, Professional Employees Union, American Federation of Teachers, Local 2012, AFL/CIO (hereafter the union or local No. 2012). The respondents in this case are the union and the board.

On March 31, 1988, the union filed a unit-clarification petition with the board pursuant to the Rhode Island Labor Relations Act, G.L.1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-7-9(b)(3)(A), as amended by P.L.1987, ch. 495, § 1. The petition asked the board to clarify two positions of employment at the Authority, which operates WSBE-TV Channel 36, a public television station, pursuant to G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 16-61-6(d). The union asked the board to determine whether the positions, called associate producers, should have been included in the union's existing bargaining unit as defined by the board's 1969 classification of positions included in the unit (case No. EE-1854).

The board held formal hearings from October 12, 1988, through February 26, 1990, during which both sides presented testimony. The union argued that the position of associate producer was permanent and protected by G.L.1956 (1984 Reenactment) chapter 11 of title 36, which governs the organization of state employees. Consequently, the union argued, the positions should be included within the certified-bargaining unit of state employees.

The union presented as witnesses two employees who each held the title of associate producer. Phae Plushner (Plushner) began working at channel 36 in January 1984 as an unpaid intern for "Tuesday Nights," a program used as a vehicle for training students and interns. Although Plushner initially requested a position at the station, she accepted the unpaid internship after she was informed that no employment was available. After two or three months, she began to receive a minimum-wage salary but never received benefits of any kind. She worked approximately ten hours each week at the beginning of her internship, and after about a year she began to work up to thirty-five hours a week, ten to twenty-five hours of which were performed outside the station.

During the time she worked at the station, Plushner continued to express interest in a full-time position at the station, but none became available. She was, however, offered two full-time positions at another commercial television station during the time she worked for channel 36. To the surprise of channel 36's production manager Leroy Czaskos (Czaskos), she turned the offers down because the work schedule was not acceptable to her. Although she attempted to move to a full-time position at channel 36, Plushner was never hired for a position other than the internship, and she received no formal notification that her job title had changed.

Plushner contended, however, that the substantive duties she performed changed from those she was hired to perform as an intern. Although she was unable to point to an exact, or even an approximate, date on which her transmutation from intern to associate producer occurred, Plushner testified that she eventually stopped performing internship duties, such as typing and floor directing, and began to "supervise" other interns, to develop ideas for shows, and "pretty much put the ['Tuesday Nights'] show together" by herself. These new duties were unsupervised and were usually initiated by Plushner.

Eventually, the closing credits of "Tuesday Nights" listed Plushner not as a production assistant but as an associate producer. Letters of recommendation written by station personnel for Plushner call her an associate producer, and an interoffice memo refers to her as a "producer."

The second employee who testified before the board was Leslie Parks (Parks), who was hired by channel 36 in October 1986 after working as the creative-service director of a radio station in New London, Connecticut. Just as Plushner had, Parks obtained her position by approaching Czaskos and asking for a position. Parks accepted the position of associate producer, and testified that Czaskos felt she was overqualified for the position. Parks further testified that she would not have considered an internship because, at that point, she had already been out of school for fifteen years. During her tenure at channel 36, Parks was never referred to as an intern. Her job duties included booking and preparing for the "Tuesday Nights" program and recording "on the street" interviews. Parks testified that she "directed" other interns and informally evaluated their performance for the station. Like Plushner, however, she never received more than minimum wage, nor did she receive employee fringe benefits.

At the hearing before the board, the Authority's description of Parks's and Plushner's activities at the station differed substantially from that provided by Parks and Plushner. Czaskos testified for the Authority that the position of associate producer never existed, that the employees in question were intern trainees, and that use of the term "associate producer" in referring to these positions was not evidence of an actual position, but rather a longstanding form of professional courtesy for interns in the broadcast industry. The Authority further argued that the references to associate producer, particularly in respect to Plushner, were consistent with a cosmetic attempt to describe the functional activities of interns.

The Authority also introduced as evidence pay records that listed the minimum-wage compensation for all intern trainees under the heading "student assistants," a listing that included the compensation of Plushner, Parks, and other student and nonstudent workers. In addition to Plushner's and Parks's testimony that at no time did they receive more than minimum wage and never received benefits, the Authority also noted that both Parks and Plushner worked on the "Tuesday Nights" program, channel 36's vehicle for training interns.

The Authority noted that under § 16-61-6(o), the station is directed to conduct "training in matters related to public broadcasting and public broadcasting telecommunications in the state, directly; or through contracts with appropriate agencies, organizations or individuals." In fulfilling this responsibility, the Authority produced evidence that since 1967 it has conducted internship programs that have provided opportunities for training in public broadcasting, following which, the interns were expected to move on to other endeavors. The Authority argued that the positions in dispute were part of such a training program and that even if some interns were associated with the production of a program, their actual positions as interns did not, over time, become transformed into collective-bargaining positions at minimum wage and no benefits.

Czaskos also testified that during the entire duration of the internship program, the union never petitioned to represent interns, nor had it filed an unfair-labor-practice charge contending that interns were performing the duties of bargaining-unit members. The union president testified that the 110 to 112 members of local No. 2012 worked a thirty-five-hour week, and as of fiscal year 1990, earned salaries ranging from $20,045 to $49,952, substantially more than Parks and Plushner, who were paid minimum wages with no benefits.

Moreover, the union had never received, as was required for positions in the collective-bargaining unit, postings of the putative associate-producer positions before they were filled. Neither had the union ever filed a grievance claiming that the contract had been violated for failure to post the positions before they were filled.

Plushner contacted the union before March 1988 and stopped working at the station in July 1988. Parks testified that she was fired from her position at channel 36 in April 1988.

On December 21, 1990, the board found that Plushner occupied the position of associate producer at channel 36 from April 1984 to July 1988 and that this position had been created by the Authority and had been given to her. The board also found that Parks had been hired as an associate producer and held this position until her employment ended in April 1988. Further, the board concluded that both Parks and Plushner were state employees under chapter 11 of title 36 and that because the positions they occupied shared a community of interest with the other employees in the bargaining unit, their positions as associate producer were appropriate for inclusion in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
766 cases
  • Rhode Island Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 23 Junio 1998
    ...employees mutual interests in wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Rhode Island Public Telecommunications Authority v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board, 650 A.2d 479, 487 (R.I.1994). Our decision was based in part on previous arbitration awards that had determined that ......
  • Borgueta v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, C.A PC 2010-5813
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 2 Mayo 2013
    ...Surgical Associates v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 804-05 (R.I. 2000) (citing Barrington School Committee v. R.I. State Labor Relations Bd., 650 A.2d 479, 485 (R.I. 1994)). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and m......
  • Borgueta v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 2 Mayo 2013
    ...Surgical Associates v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 804-05 (R.I. 2000) (citing Barrington School Committee v. R.I. State Labor Relations Bd., 650 A.2d 479, 485 (R.I. 1994)). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and m......
  • Borgueta v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, C.A PC 2010-5813
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • 2 Mayo 2013
    ...Surgical Associates v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 804-05 (R.I. 2000) (citing Barrington School Committee v. R.I. State Labor Relations Bd., 650 A.2d 479, 485 (R.I. 1994)). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT