Town of East Greenwich v. East Greenwich Fire Fighters Association Local 3328

• Decision Date: 23 August 2018
• Docket Number: C.A. KC-2017-1276
• Parties: TOWN OF EAST GREENWICH, RHODE ISLAND, Plaintiff, v. EAST GREENWICH FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 3328, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, by and through, WILLIAM PERRY, in his official capacity as President of the EAST GREENWICH FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 3328, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, and MATT HOWARD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the EAST GREENWICH FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 3328, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, Defendants.
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

TOWN OF EAST GREENWICH, RHODE ISLAND, Plaintiff, v. EAST GREENWICH FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 3328, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, by and through, WILLIAM PERRY, in his official capacity as President of the EAST GREENWICH FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 3328, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, and MATT HOWARD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the EAST GREENWICH FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 3328, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, Defendants.

C.A. No. KC-2017-1276

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Kent

August 23, 2018

For Plaintiff: Timothy C. Cavazza, Esq.; David M. D'Agostino Esq.

For Defendant: Elizabeth A. Wiens, Esq. Jeffrey W. Kasle, Esq. (counsel for Intervenor)

DECISION

MCGUIRL, J.

Plaintiff Town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island (Plaintiff or the Town) filed a Complaint for declaratory relief, as well as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant East Greenwich Fire Fighters Association Local 3328, I.A.F.F AFL-CIO (the Union) requesting that this Court declare-pursuant to its authority under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act-that the Town has a "non-delegable management right" to reorganize the structure of the East Greenwich Fire Department (EGFD) from its existing four platoon structure to a three platoon structure. In its Complaint, Plaintiff urges this Court to declare that the Town Charter grants the authority to restructure the EGFD to the Town and that such authority may not be: (1) bargained away; (2) delegated to an arbitrator or (3) restricted by contract.

Plaintiff initially moved for judgment on the pleadings on March 9, 2018. Two separate hearings were held-on May 24, 2018 and June 19, 2018, respectively-on the merits of each party's argument regarding whether the Town has a "non-delegable management right" to reorganize the EGFD. This Court now issues a Decision in this matter pursuant to its jurisdiction under G. L. 1956 §§ 9-30-1 et seq. and G. L. 1956 § 8-2-13.

I Facts and Travel

The Town of East Greenwich is a municipality with a Town Council/Town Manager form of government. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) The Union is a labor organization and the exclusive bargaining agent for all permanent employees of the EGFD, except for the Chief and the Deputy Chief. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.

On or about March 15, 2016, the Town and the Union executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which includes several provisions concerning the pay, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the Town's firefighting and rescue personnel assigned to a "four platoon system." (Pl.'s Ex. A.) The CBA is the result of negotiations between the Union and Town representatives. The CBA is set to expire in June of 2019. Id.

In the CBA, the parties explicitly agreed to a four platoon system and at least twenty-one separate sections of the CBA-including sections concerning wages, shift schedule, and overtime-expressly apply to employees assigned to a four platoon system. Id. "By operating the Fire Department with a four-platoon system, the Town [agreed to] separate[] its line fire suppression and emergency rescue personnel into four groups, or platoons." (Am. Compl. ¶ 23) (Ex. A §§ 10, 61.) The Town also agreed, inter alia, (1) to permit firefighters to bid to particular platoons where they will work an average of forty-two hours per week; (2) to a work schedule for each firefighter of two ten-hour days, followed by two fourteen-hours nights, followed by four days off; (3) to specific hourly rates; and (4) to pay firefighters time-and-one-half their hourly rate when they work outside their regular shift schedule. (Ex. A §§ 26, 36, 39.) Finally, the parties agreed that the firefighters' pay would not be docked when they are representing the interests of their fellow bargaining unit members. Under the CBA, any dispute between the parties regarding conditions of employment shall be determined by an arbitrator. Id. § 46.

The Town alleges that it intends to reorganize the EGFD and implement a three platoon structure, rather than the current four platoon structure as is delineated in the CBA. Although very few facts have been included in the pleadings with respect to the initial notice of the Town's intent to reorganize and the subsequent negotiations arising therefrom, the Union, in its initial objection to the Town's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, provided a rather extensive history as to this development. The Town, in its Reply in Further Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, objected to these facts as prejudicial and unsupported but ultimately did not deny or contradict them. Though this "history" is not established as part of the record, it may be helpful in terms of understanding context. The Union provided the following:

"On December 5, 2017, the Union and Town met to discuss some pending grievances. During the meeting, one of the Town's attorneys . . . gave [fire fighter] Lt. Perry a letter from [the Town Manager] dated the same day. The letter provides that [the Town Manager] discussed her intentions 'with the Council to reorganize the line firefighting rescue division into a three-platoon, 56-hour workweek structure.' According to the letter, the Council authorized her to engage in negotiations over the effects of 'that reorganization prior to its full implementation. . . .'

"On December 6, 2017, the Union and Town reached a tentative agreement whereby the Town agreed that it would not reorganize the fire department in exchange for certain concessions from the Union. In addition, the Town agreed to extend the collective bargaining agreement an additional two years, and provide wage increases. (Emphasis added).

"On December 11, 2017, [one of the Town's Attorneys] sent two documents to a representative from the Rhode Island State Association of Firefighters "reflecting our tentative agreement in East Greenwich." One week later, on December 18, 2017, the Town filed the instant lawsuit. . . .

"On January 3, 2018, the Union . . . went to Town Hall for the scheduled meeting . . . . Before the Union could provide the Town representatives with written copy of the tentative agreement, [the Town Manager] advised the Union that there was no deal. She asserted that on December 18, 2017, in executive session, the Town Council unanimously rejected nearly every single promise it had made the Union at the December 6, 2017 bargaining session." (Emphasis in original).

A significant portion of the decision to reorganize the EGFD was first raised on December 5, 2018, in which a letter from the Town Manager detailed her intentions to reorganize, and it appears negotiations ensued. Just under a month later, on January 3, 2018, it appears the issue of reorganization was decided and off the table without any discussion or negotiation with the Union. Although these facts are not agreed upon, there are letters-provided to this Court from the Union-documenting such. This history, of course, only goes to the issue of negotiations undertaken-or not undertaken-regarding the decision to reorganize the EGFD.

The Town now alleges that "[t]he Town Manager has decided to exercise her non-delegable statutory power, responsibility and obligation to reorganize the Fire Department into a three-platoon structure, and she has received approval and obtained authority from the Town Council to commence negotiations over the effects of the decision to implement the three-platoon structure." (Am. Compl. ¶ 47.)

Subsequent to a conference in chambers, in which the issue of justiciability was brought to light, ^[1] the Town Council took a vote relevant to the issues of justiciability and ripeness. The Council ultimately voted to accept the Town Manager's recommendation to reorganize the EGFD from its current four platoon structure to a three platoon structure. The Town Council also noted that, although they had voted to implement the reorganization of the EGFD, they would nonetheless hold the reorganization in abeyance pending this Court's decision on Plaintiff's pending motion. The Union agreed that it was in the best interest of both parties to hold the implementation in abeyance until a decision had been rendered.

The Town now alleges that "[a] controversy exists between the Town and the Union concerning the Town's assertion of management right to decide to implement three-platoon structure in the Town's Fire Department." Id. ¶ 51. The Town brings this action for declaratory judgment to resolve disputes and have declared the rights, status and other legal relations of and between the Town and the Union concerning the Town's assertion of its fundamental and non-delegable management rights to decide the organizational structure, the size and the appropriate staffing levels of the EGFD.

II

Standard of Review

A Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act

A declaratory judgment '"is neither an action at law nor a suit in equity but a novel statutory proceeding ."' Northern Trust Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Westerly, 899 A.2d 517, 520 n.6 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Newport Amusement Co. v. Maher, 92 R.I. 51 53, 166 A.2d 216, 217 (1960)). Our Supreme Court recognizes that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) "vests the Superior Court with the 'power to declare rights status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.'" Malachowski v. State of Rhode Island, 877 A.2d 649 (R.I. 2005) (citations omitted) (quoting § 9-30-1); see also Sullivan, 703 A.2d at 750 (stating that trial court's "decision to grant or to deny declaratory relief under the [UDJA] is purely discretionary[]"). "This power is broadly construed, to allow the trial justice to 'facilitate the termination of controversies.'" Bradford Assocs. v. R.I. Div. of Purchases, 772 A.2d 485, 489 (R.I. 2001) (quoting Capital Properties, Inc. v. State, ...