Town of N. Kingstown v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters

• Citation: 107 A.3d 304
• Decision Date: 09 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2013–96–Appeal.,No. 2013–44–Appeal , No. 2013–66–Appeal ,2013–44–Appeal
• Parties: TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1651 AFL–CIO, et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

107 A.3d 304

TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN

v.INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1651 AFL–CIO, et al.

No. 2013–44–Appeal

No. 2013–66–Appeal

No. 2013–96–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 9, 2015.

Daniel K. Kinder, Esq., Providence, for Town.

Elizabeth A. Wiens, Esq., for Union.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Justice INDEGLIA, for the Court.

These consolidated appeals arise out of a decision of the Superior Court issuing various declaratory and injunctive relief in a highly contested labor dispute between the Town of North Kingstown (town) and the North Kingstown Firefighters, Local 1651, International Association of Firefighters, AFL–CIO (union). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

AThe 2010 Expired Collective Bargaining Agreement

On June 30, 2010, a labor contract that had been in effect between the town and the union since July 1, 2007, expired. Prior to the expiration of that agreement, the parties had attempted to negotiate a successor contract, but to no avail. Subsequently, an interest arbitration panel was convened to set forth the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties. After thirteen days of hearings and after sifting through 172 exhibits and 357 pages of post-hearing briefs, the panel issued an award on August 9, 2011. The panel's award was retroactive, covering the period from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.¹

One of the more critical and contentious issues that arose during this interest arbitration was the town's proposal to reorganize from a four-platoon structure to a three-platoon structure.² The town made clear at the arbitration that, if allowed to effectuate this reorganization, it would not press other of its proposals that would have made structural changes to the operation of the fire department. However, the town's proposal on this issue was rejected by the panel, and the award provided for the same work schedule as the prior CBA.

BImplementation of the Three–Platoon Structure and North Kingstown I

On February 23, 2011, the union wrote to the North Kingstown town manager requesting that collective bargaining negotiations commence for a new CBA year 2011–2012 in accordance with G.L.1956 § 28–9.1–6. The parties exchanged a series of communications and eventually on October 28, 2011, met to bargain for a successor agreement. Five additional negotiating sessions were conducted, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Throughout the negotiations, the key issue of contention between the parties was the implementation of the three-platoon structure and the accompanying twenty-four hours on, forty-eight hours off work schedule. At the end of the sessions, no agreement was reached, and no issues were submitted to interest arbitration.

On December 19, 2011, the town wrote to the union indicating that it intended to introduce an ordinance to reorganize the fire department. Two subsequent negotiating sessions were conducted. However, no agreement was reached. Then, on January 30, 2012, the town council enacted, in amended form, an ordinance that authorized the town's desired implementation of the department reorganization. Another negotiating session was held after that, but no agreement was reached.

On February 28, 2012, the union filed suit in the Washington County Superior Court seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was invalid because it was passed in violation of the town charter; (2) a declaratory judgment that the town violated the Firefighters Arbitration Act (FFAA or the Act) and the State Labor Relations Act (SLRA); and (3) injunctive relief. Prior to issuing a decision on the merits, the Superior Court ordered the parties to engage in mediation, which failed to resolve the matter. On March 11, 2012, the town began implementing the ordinance, including the three-platoon structure and accompanying schedule.

On May 23, 2012, the Superior Court issued a written decision declaring that, because it was passed in violation of the town charter, the ordinance was invalid. See International Association of Firefighters. Local 1651, AFL–CIO v. Town of North Kingstown, WC 2012–127, 2012 WL 1948338 (R.I.Super.Ct. May 23, 2012) (North Kingstown I ). Additionally, the Superior Court found that, even if that ordinance had been properly passed, it was still “invalid because it conflicts with the FFAA by imposing changes to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment without first bargaining to agreement or following the FFAA's statutory arbitration procedures.” However, the Superior Court explicitly recognized that:

“[T]he platoon structure of the Fire Department is a management right that may be properly asserted at the expiration of the CBA [and that] [g]oing forward the parties may agree to a new CBA that addresses the effects of this management change on mandatory bargaining subjects or proceed to interest arbitration, solely to determine the effects on mandatory bargaining subjects and not the management decision itself.”

Nevertheless, the court found that “unilateral implementation of changes to wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment” was improper.

CNorth Kingstown II

Prior to the Superior Court's decision in North Kingstown I, on February 23, 2012, the union wrote to the town manager requesting bargaining for the contract year July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Additionally, on March 14, 2012, the union filed a demand for interest arbitration for the July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 contract period and an arbitration panel was named (AAA Case 11 390 00469 12) (2011–2012 Arbitration Panel). Also, the union later filed a demand for interest arbitration for the July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 contract period and another arbitration panel was named (AAA Case 11 390 01035 12) (2012–2013 Arbitration Panel). On June 14, 2012, the union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the State Labor Relations Board (SLRB) (ULP–6088). On July 9, 2012, the town filed a demand for interest arbitration over the effects of the three-platoon structure reorganization and a third arbitration panel was named (AAA Case 11 390 01169 12) (Effects Arbitration Panel).³ On August 2, 2012, the SLRB issued a complaint against the town, alleging that the manner in which the town implemented the three-platoon structure violated state law.

On September 5, 2012, the town filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court seeking declarations that:

(1) the SLRB was without jurisdiction to enforce ULP–6088;

(2) the town's actions in implementing the three-platoon structure were lawful;

(3) jurisdiction to determine the effects of the town's decision to implement the three-platoon structure rests exclusively with the Effects Arbitration Panel;

(4) the union waived its right to submit to interest arbitration the unresolved issues arising out of the parties' negotiations for a CBA for the July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 period; and

(5) the 2011–2012 Arbitration Panel was without jurisdiction to decide any unresolved issues between the parties for the July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 period.

The town also sought to stay the 2011–2012 Arbitration Panel and a declaration that the SLRB was without jurisdiction to enforce ULP–6088. On September 24, 2012, the town filed an amended complaint and petition to stay arbitrations and sought additional declarations, including that:

(1) the union failed to comply with its obligation under § 28–9.1–13, therefore forfeiting its right to collectively bargain as to firefighters' wages, rates of pay, or any other matter requiring appropriation of money by the town for the July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 period;

(2) the union failed to comply with its obligation under § 28–9.1–13, therefore forfeiting its right to collectively bargain as to firefighters' wages, rates of pay, or any other matter requiring appropriation of money by the town for the July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 period;

(3) the union waived its right to submit to interest arbitration the unresolved issues arising out of the parties' negotiations for a CBA for the July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 period; and

(4) the 2012–2013 Arbitration Panel was without jurisdiction to decide any unresolved issues between the parties for the July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 period.

The town also sought to stay the 2012–2013 Arbitration Panel.

At the time these actions were filed, the town was continuing to operate under the three-platoon structure. The town's position before the Superior Court was that it had the inherent right to reorganize into the three-platoon structure, especially in light of the fact that the CBA had expired and the union had failed to request interest arbitration of unresolved issues within the time frame delineated by the FFAA as set forth in § 28–9.1–7. Additionally, the town contended that the union had forfeited its right to collectively bargain altogether due to the union's failure to comply with the notice provision of § 28–9.1–13.

Both parties filed memoranda addressing the issues pending before the Superior Court. In order to simplify and clarify the issues that needed to be addressed, the Superior Court held a conference in accordance with Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties were instructed to agree to the most significant issues that needed to be addressed. Pursuant to this instruction, the parties submitted a statement to the Superior Court indicating that “the parties agree[d] that the following issues [were] before the Court for decision.” The issues presented were:

(1) Decide the town's petition/motion to stay the 2011–2012 Arbitration Panel;

(2) Decide the town's petition/motion to stay the arbitration of Certain Firefighter Grievances;

(3) Decide the town's request for a stay of ULP–6088;

(4) Decide the town's petition/motion to stay the 2012–2013 Arbitrat

...