Town of North Kingstown v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board

• Decision Date: 06 January 2014
• Docket Number: WM 13-0516,C.A. PC 13-4261
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court
• Parties: TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN Plaintiff v. RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by and through its Chairman, WALTER J. LANNI, and its Members, MARCIA B. REBACK, GERALD S. GOLDSTEIN, ELIZABETH S. DOLAN, BRUCE A. WOLPERT, FRANK J. MONTANARO, and SCOTT G. DUHAMEL; and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1651, AFL-CIO; RAYMOND FURTADO, in his official capacity as President of IAFF, Local 1651, AFL-CIO; and CHRISTOPHER BEATTIE, in his official capacity as Secretary of IAFF, Local 1651, AFL-CIO Defendants RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Plaintiff v. TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN, by and through its Town Manager, MICHAEL EMBURY, and NORTH KINGSTOWN TOWN COUNCIL, by and through its members, ELIZABETH S. DOLAN, President, KERRY McKAY, RICHARD WELCH, CAROL H. HUESTON, and KEVIN MALONEY Defendants

TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN Plaintiff
v.
RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by and through its Chairman, WALTER J. LANNI, and its Members, MARCIA B. REBACK, GERALD S. GOLDSTEIN, ELIZABETH S. DOLAN, BRUCE A. WOLPERT, FRANK J. MONTANARO, and SCOTT G. DUHAMEL; and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1651, AFL-CIO; RAYMOND FURTADO, in his official capacity as President of IAFF, Local 1651, AFL-CIO; and CHRISTOPHER BEATTIE, in his official capacity as Secretary of IAFF, Local 1651, AFL-CIO Defendants

RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Plaintiff
v.
TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN, by and through its Town Manager, MICHAEL EMBURY, and NORTH KINGSTOWN TOWN COUNCIL, by and through its members, ELIZABETH S. DOLAN, President, KERRY McKAY, RICHARD WELCH, CAROL H. HUESTON, and KEVIN MALONEY Defendants

C.A. Nos. PC 13-4261, WM 13-0516

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Kent

January 6, 2014

Kent County Superior Court

For Plaintiff: Daniel K. Kinder, Esq.; Timothy C. Cavazza, Esq.

For Defendant: Margaret L. Hogan, Esq.; Marc B. Gursky, Esq.

DECISION

STERN, J.

The Town of North Kingstown (Town) appeals the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board's (Labor Board) Decision and Order of September 27, 2013 (Decision and Order) in which the Labor Board found that the Town violated G.L. 1956 § 28-7-13(6) of the State Labor Relations Act (SLRA) by engaging in bad faith bargaining with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1651, AFL-CIO (Union) during negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA); that the Town violated the Fire Fighters Arbitration Act (FFAA), §§ 28-9.1-1, et seq., by unilaterally implementing a restructuring plan that affected the terms of employment of the Union's members without submitting that plan to interest arbitration; and that the Town's unilateral implementation of the restructuring plan constituted an unfair labor practice under § 28-7-13(6) and (10) of the SLRA. The Labor Board ordered the Town, inter alia, to immediately restore the firefighters' schedules, hours of work, and hourly rates of pay to the terms that existed at the expiration of the 2010-2011 CBA between the parties; to make the firefighters monetarily whole; to participate in interest arbitration for the 2011-2012 fiscal year; to restore and maintain the status quo on all terms and conditions of employment that existed in the 2010-2011 CBA; and to cease and desist from unilaterally implementing any changes to the firefighters' terms and conditions of employment. The Town argues that the Decision and Order should be overturned for a number of reasons, falling into three categories: First, the Town argues that the Labor Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the underlying labor dispute between the Town and Union. Second, the Town argues that the Labor Board's procedure was fundamentally flawed, and therefore, the Decision and Order was clearly erroneous in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Third, the Town argues that the Labor Board misapplied and/or disregarded the applicable law.

I Facts and Travel

The Town and the Union have long been partners to collective bargaining pursuant to the FFAA. The most recent CBA between the parties was effective from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010.When the 2007-2010 CBA expired, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on a new CBA, and therefore, they submitted their unresolved issues to interest arbitration in accordance with the requirements of the FFAA.^[1] The arbitration panel issued an award on August 9, 2011, which extended the terms of the expired CBA, from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, albeit with certain amended terms and conditions.^[2]

On February 23, 2011—before the arbitration panel issued its award—the Union wrote to the Town Manager to request collective bargaining negotiation for a new CBA that would be effective July 1, 2011. Under the FFAA, ^[3] the parties had ten days from the date of that request to begin collective bargaining of a successor agreement. However, the parties did not meet for the first time until October 28, 2011 to negotiate. Subsequent negotiations of a successor agreement took place in November and December 2011. The parties did not reach an agreement by the end of December 2011.

The Town was interested in changing the platoon structure of the fire department from four platoons to three; in changing the average working hours of the firefighters' workweek from forty-two to fifty-six; and in changing the length of the firefighters' work shifts. Having failed to reach agreement with the Union over this proposed restructuring plan, the Town sought to introduce an ordinance that would give effect to the restructuring plan, whether the Union agreed to the terms of that plan or not. The first reading of the ordinance occurred at a Town Council meeting on December 19, 2011, the day before the parties were scheduled to meet to continue negotiating. The parties did meet on December 20, 2011, and a subsequent negotiation session took place on January 28, 2012, but the parties remained in disagreement over the terms of the plan. The Town Council amended the proposed ordinance and ultimately passed it by a three-to-two vote. Thereafter, the Town notified the Union that it intended to implement the ordinance, which would take effect March 4, 2012. One final negotiation session took place on February 23, 2012, but the parties were not able to reach an agreement on the unresolved issues in this final meeting.

The Union filed suit in this Court against the Town on February 28, 2012, requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to restrain the Town from implementing the ordinance. Through its Verified Complaint, the Union sought: (1) a declaratory judgment invalidating the ordinance; (2) a declaratory judgment that the Town had violated the FFAA and the SLRA and that the ordinance was preempted by those acts; and (3) injunctive relief. During the pendency of the consideration of the Temporary Restraining Order the Town agreed to delay the implementation of the Ordinance. This Court subsequently denied the Union's request for a temporary restraining order and scheduled the matter for a hearing on the preliminary injunction. The ordinance took effect on March 11, 2012. The Town filed a Motion to Dismiss the Verified Complaint on March 15, 2012 under Rule 12(b)(6)—for failure to state a claim—and Rule 12(b)(1)—for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.^[4]

After hearing witness testimony, reviewing documentary evidence, and entertaining briefs and oral arguments from each side, this Court on May 23, 2012 denied the Town's motion to dismiss on both the Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) grounds. See Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. Town of N. Kingstown, C.A. No. WC-2012-0127, 2012 WL 1948338 (R.I. Super. Ct. May 23, 2012) (hereinafter North Kingstown I). However, this Court did find that the Town's ordinance was invalid. This Court found that the ordinance had been passed in violation of the Town Charter, and found that even if the ordinance had been properly passed, it was still invalid "because it conflict[ed] 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." Id. Since the ordinance had been invalidated, there was nothing for this Court to enjoin; therefore, the Union's request for a preliminary injunction was denied as moot. Id.

Notwithstanding this Court's decision in North Kingstown I, the Town maintained the organizational changes it had unilaterally implemented under the now-invalidated ordinance. The Town's rationale was that it had an inherent right to unilaterally change the relationship between the Town and the Union—even without an ordinance—in light of the Union's failure to request interest arbitration of unresolved issues within the time frame specified in § 28-9.1-7 of the FFAA and because the CBA had expired.^[5] The Town also asserted that the Union had forfeited its right to collectively bargain over the restructuring plan because the Union had also failed to abide by the time frame specified in § 28-9.1-13 of the FFAA.

On June 14, 2012, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Labor Board in which it sought to have the Labor Board order the Town to (1) restore the status quo ante as it existed upon the expiration of the parties' collective bargaining agreement; (2) compensate the Union and its members for damages; and (3) participate in FFAA interest arbitration. Subsequently, the Labor Board issued a complaint against the Town on August 2, 2012, alleging that the Town violated state statutes when it "unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment, including hours and wages, without bargaining to impasse and without exhausting all statutory dispute resolution mechanism under the [FFAA]." The Town filed an answer denying the charges and asserting twenty-one affirmative defenses. The Town filed a Verified Complaint and Petition to Stay Arbitration with this Court in C.A. No. WC-2012-0542 on September 5, 2012, and filed an Amended Complaint and Petition to Stay Arbitrations on September 24, 2012.

In Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. Town of N. Kingstown, C.A. No. WC-2012-0542, 2012 WL 6638703 (R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2012) (hereinafter North Kingstown II), this Court held that:

"(1) The Town's actions in implementing unilateral changes to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, were unlawful, as in violation of the doctrine of election [of] remedies and the terms of the FFAA

"(2) This Court finds that the [Labor Board], and not this Court, has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint in ULP-6088 insofar as it is necessary to determine which terms and conditions have existed between the parties since the expiration

...