Rhode Island State Labor Relations Bd. v. Valley Falls Fire Dist.

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEVILACQUA
• Citation: Rhode Island State Labor Relations Bd. v. Valley Falls Fire Dist., 505 A.2d 1170 (R.I. 1986)
• Decision Date: 13 March 1986
• Docket Number: Nos. 83-168-M,s. 83-168-M
• Parties: RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. VALLEY FALLS FIRE DISTRICT. P., 83-176-M.P.

Page 1170

505 A.2d 1170

RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. VALLEY FALLS FIRE DISTRICT.

Nos. 83-168-M.P., 83-176-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 13, 1986.

Matthew C. Cunningham, Blais Cunningham Crowe & Chester, Pawtucket, for petitioner.

Vincent F. Kane, Providence, for respondent.

OPINION

BEVILACQUA, Chief Judge.

In these consolidated cases, the defendant seeks review of a Superior Court enforcement by way of both appeal pursuant to G.L.1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-7-28 and petition for writ of certiorari under G.L.1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 42-35-16.

The facts are not in dispute. On July 6, 1982, plaintiff Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board (the board) filed a petition to enforce its order of May 6, 1982, against defendant Valley Falls Fire District, in Providence County Superior Court, pursuant to § 28-7-26. The petition alleged that defendant had failed to comply with the mandate of a board order directing defendant to "meet and confer with representatives of Local 2729 for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement * * *."

The defendant Valley Falls Fire District is a quasi-municipal corporation created by a special act of the Legislature. Local No. 2729 International Association of Fire Fighters was certified on July 14, 1981, as the duly authorized collective-bargaining agent for defendant's employees. In May 1982 plaintiff issued an order directing defendant to participate in arbitration with local No. 2729 pursuant to the Rhode Island Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act. G.L.1956 (1979 Reenactment) chapter 9.1 of title 28. A written request to bargain was sent to Arthur Clemente, chairman of the Board of Wardens, Valley Falls Fire District, Rhode Island. Clemente subsequently advised local 2729 that defendant would not honor the terms of the order. However, defendant failed to seek review in accordance with § 42-35-15, which provides the procedure to be followed when a party is aggrieved by a final decision of an agency in a contested case. Instead defendant, alleging that plaintiff lacked jurisdiction, petitioned the Supreme Court by way of a writ of certiorari to review the issue raised. This petition was denied. See Valley Falls Fire District v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board, 442 A.2d 448 (R.I.1981). In the meantime, plaintiff commenced a statutory proceeding in the Superior Court pursuant to § 28-7-26 to compel defendant to comply with defendant's decision. The Superior Court granted plaintiff's petition to enforce.

In considering the question, the trial justice examined § 28-9.1-2 and found that the act contained a broad policy statement which stated in part:

"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state to accord to the permanent uniformed members and all employees of any paid fire department in any city or town all of the rights of labor other than the right to strike * * *."

Although this section does not mention fire districts, the trial justice concluded that a fire district is included within the definition of corporate authorities, as set forth in § 28-9.1-3(b). He stated that because the Board of Fire Wards is charged with the responsibility to provide fire protection for the people in the district and it is within the boundaries of a town in Rhode Island, defendant meets the requirements of being within a city or town as required by § 28-9.1-3(b). Furthermore, since the Board of Fire Wards exercises the powers of a town council, the responsibilities that correspond with such powers attach as well. The trial justice therefore decided that defendant came within the provisions of the Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act and that plaintiff had proper jurisdiction over this matter.

This case presents two issues: (1) whether the defendant fire district is included within the Rhode Island Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act and (2) whether appellate review of this matter should be sought by appeal or by petition for certiorari.

I

The defendant, relying on Kennelly v. Kent County Water Authority, 79 R.I. 376, 89 A.2d 188 (1952), contends that a fire district is neither a "city or town," nor is it included in the definitions of city or town. The defendant further contends that the Labor Relations Act expressly excludes firefighters from coverage and that the rights created under the Rhode Island Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act apply only to permanent uniformed members and all employees of any paid fire department in any city or town.

The plaintiff in turn argues that to construe the Fire Fighters' Arbitration Act to exclude full-time paid employees of the fire district would create an absurd result, contrary to the intent of the Legislature. Although plaintiff concedes that the act does not specifically extend coverage to political entities other than cities or towns, its purpose however is to protect the association rights of employees while safeguarding the health, safety, and welfare of the people.

This court has stated repeatedly that in construing a statute, our task is to establish and effectuate the intent of the Legislature by examining the language, nature, and object of the statute. Howard Union of Teachers v. State, 478 A.2d 563 (R.I.1984). Furthermore, this court will not adopt a construction that effects an absurd result. Berthiaume v. School Committee of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 243, 397 A.2d 889 (1979). Examination of the statutory language reveals that the purpose of the statute here in question is unequivocal.

Section 28-9.1-2 states that "protection of the public * * * demands that the permanent uniformed members and all employees of any paid fire department in any city or town not be accorded the right to strike * * * ." On its face, the statute is written to protect the public from lapses in fire protection occasioned by labor disputes. Mindful that the statute does not specifically extend the protective provisions to fire districts, we are of the opinion that the Legislature intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons who are served by city or town fire departments, as well as those served by fire-district departments. If we were to conclude that the act is inapplicable to fire districts, it...