Town of West Warwick v. International Association of Firefighters, Local 1104
| Decision Date | 29 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | C.A. PM-2012-4218 |
| Parties | TOWN OF WEST WARWICK v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1104 |
| Court | Superior Court of Rhode Island |
For Plaintiff: Jeffrey W. Kasle, Esq.
For Defendant: Joseph F. Penza, Jr., Esq.
Before this Court are the Town of West Warwick's (Town) Motion to Vacate and International Association of Firefighters Local 1104's (Union) Cross-Motion to Confirm an arbitration award issued on May 17, 2012 (Arbitration Award). In the Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator found that the Town's calculation of pensioners' disability benefits violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement and ordered the Town to make whole any individuals injured by the violation. For the reasons set forth in this Decision, this Court vacates the Arbitration Award.
The Union and the Town are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), entered into pursuant to the Fire Fighters Arbitration Act, § 28-9.1-1 et seq. See CBA Town's Mot. to Vacate, Ex. 1. The CBA became effective July 2, 2011 and expired June 30, 2013. Article XVII of the CBA addresses the pension rights and benefits of "all permanent members of the West Warwick Fire Department." (Art. XVII, § 1, CBA.) Pursuant to § 7 of Article XVII, those "members covered by [the CBA]" who are rendered "physically unfit for duty" due to an occupational injury or illness are entitled to a disability retirement benefit, payable "at the rate of two-thirds (2/3) of the salary of the rank they held at the time of their disability[.]" (Art. XVII, § 7, CBA.) That section further provides that the members' "disability pension payments shall continue to be NO LESS than two-thirds (2/3) of the salary being received by an active Fire Fighter holding the same rank during the time the member is on disability retirement." (Art. XVII, § 7, CBA.) (emphasis in original). This language concerning the calculation of disability benefits first appeared in the collective bargaining agreement in effect between the parties in 1988 to 1989 and has appeared substantially unaltered in each subsequent agreement through to the present one. See Arbitrator's Opinion, Town's Mot. to Vacate, Ex. 2 at 3.
Article IX of the CBA provides a procedure for "resolving all alleged grievances of members of the West Warwick Fire Department[.]" (Art. IX, § 1, CBA.) In addition, the CBA gives the Union "the right to bring a grievance on behalf of any employee or on its own behalf for any violation of any of the terms and conditions of" the CBA. (Art. IX, § 1, CBA.) If a grievance is not resolved through the procedures specified in Article IX, either party may refer the grievance to final and binding arbitration. (Art. IX, § 2, CBA.)
Sometime in early 2011, the Town undertook a review of the process for calculating firefighters' disability benefits. See Arbitrator's Opinion at 5. Based on its review, the Town concluded that disability benefits were being incorrectly calculated by including certain forms of compensation that were not intended to be included under the terms of Article XVII, § 7 of the CBA. See id. In particular, the Town concluded that retirees receiving disability pensions had been overcompensated by the inclusion of longevity pay, holiday pay and EMTC pay[1] in the calculation of their benefits.[2] See id The Town therefore ordered its pension board to cease including these items in the calculation of disability benefits and, going forward, to recalculate those benefits in a manner consistent with the terms of the CBA. See Town's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Vacate at 5.
On August 19, 2011, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Town's modification of disability benefits violated Article XVII of the CBA and the "duly established past practices of the parties." (Grievance, Union's Mem. in Supp. of Obj., Ex. 1-1.) The Union requested that all disability pensions be calculated as 66 2/3% of "weekly salary, longevity [pay], holiday pay and rescue pay." Id Lieutenant Robbie Lopez of the West Warwick Fire Department, a disability retiree, filed a nearly identical grievance on September 29, 2011. See Lopez Grievance, Union's Mem. in Supp. of Obj., Ex. 1-2. The Town denied both grievances, and the Union filed a demand for arbitration.[3] See Memorandum from James H. Thomas to Bill Leahy, Oct. 7, 2011, Union's Mem. in Supp. of Obj., Ex. 1-3. The parties agreed to consolidate the two grievances. See Letter from Malcolm Moore to William Leahy, Dec. 8, 2011, Union's Mem. in Supp. of Obj., Ex. 1-5.
On February 22, 2011, Arbitrator Marc Greenbaum (Arbitrator) held a hearing on the consolidated grievances. See Arbitrator's Opinion at 1. The issues submitted for the Arbitrator's consideration were:
Id. at 2.[4]
In addition to submitting evidence of past practices, [5] both parties were allowed to submit post-hearing memoranda and reply memoranda. The Town argued to the Arbitrator that the grievances were not arbitrable because the terms of the CBA, in particular the grievance procedure provided for in the CBA, do not apply to retirees. [6] See id. at 8. The Town therefore asserted that the Union could not file a grievance on behalf of retirees. Id. With regard to the merits of the grievance, the Town argued that the unambiguous language of § 7 of Article XVII of the CBA clearly excluded longevity pay, EMTC pay, and holiday pay from the calculation of disability retirement benefits. See id. at 9. The Union, in contrast, asserted that the CBA allows it to bring grievances on behalf of retirees. See id. at 6. In addition, the Union argued that it had filed the grievance on behalf of both retirees and current firefighters. See id. On the merits, the Union suggested that the term "salary" as it appears in § 7 of Article XVII of the CBA is ambiguous such that the Arbitrator should look to the parties' past practices to determine the meaning of that term. See id. According to the Union, the evidence of past practices conclusively establishes that the parties intended to include longevity pay, holiday pay, and EMTC pay in the calculation of disability benefits. See id. at 7.
After considering the parties' submissions, the Arbitrator issued his Arbitration Award on May 17, 2012. See Arbitrator's Opinion at 18. On the first issue, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievances were arbitrable, reasoning that the parties had agreed in the CBA that "the arbitral forum is available to determine the rights of retirees." Id at 14. On the merits of the grievance, the Arbitrator concluded that the term "salary" in § 7 of Article XVII of the CBA was ambiguous. Id at 14-15. He therefore decided that it was necessary to look to extrinsic evidence to interpret the CBA. See id at 15. Based on the submitted evidence of the parties' past practices, the Arbitrator determined that the Town and the Union intended to include longevity pay, holiday pay, and EMTC pay in the calculation of disability benefits. Thus, he found that the Town had violated the CBA in 2011 by eliminating those items from disability retirees' benefits. See id at 18. On the issue of remedy, the Arbitrator ordered the Town to make whole any individuals adversely affected by the Town's violation of the CBA. Id The Arbitrator retained jurisdiction for sixty days to resolve any questions as to the implementation of the ordered remedy. Id
On August 16, 2012, the Town moved to vacate the Arbitration Award pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-9-18 and filed a petition to stay its enforcement pending resolution of its motion. The Union objected to the Town's Motion to Vacate and filed a Cross-Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award pursuant to § 28-9-17 on August 24, 2012. On August 30, 2012, a hearing justice of this Court denied the Town's petition to stay enforcement of the Arbitration Award. See Town of West Warwick v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1104, No. 12-4218, Aug. 30, 2012, (Order) (Hurst, J.). On November 2, 2012, the Union moved to dismiss the Town's Motion to Vacate on the grounds that the Town had failed to implement the Arbitration Award as required by § 28-9-18(b). See Union's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 2-3. After the Town subsequently implemented the Arbitration Award, the Union withdrew its motion to dismiss on November 20, 2012. See Union's Mem. in Supp. of Obj. at 2 n.2. Thus, the only matters left for this Court to resolve are the parties' cross-motions to confirm and vacate the Arbitration Award.
Rhode Island has a strong public policy in favor of the finality of arbitration awards. See N. Providence Sch. Comm v. N. Providence Fed. of Teachers, Local 920, 945 A.2d 339, 344 (R.I. 2008) (citing Pierce v. R.I. Hosp., 875 A.2d 424, 426 (R.I. 2005)). To preserve the integrity and efficacy of arbitration proceedings, this Court performs a limited review of arbitration awards. Aponik v. Lauricella, 844 A.2d 698, 704 (R.I. 2004). Section 28-9-18 expressly circumscribes the grounds upon which this Court can vacate an arbitration award. See § 28-9- 18. That section provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial