United Serv. v. Rhode Island State Lab. Rel. Bd.
| Decision Date | 07 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | PC 05-4784 |
| Parties | United Serv. v. Rhode Island State Lab. Rel. Bd. |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
KEOUGH, MAGISTRATE.
Before this Court is an appeal from an August 17, 2005 decision by the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board (the Labor Board) granting Motions to Dismiss that were filed by the defendants, the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority (RITBA) and the Service Employees International Union, Local 134 (the incumbent union). The Motions to Dismiss concerned a “Petition by Employees for Investigation and Certification of Representatives” (petition for election) filed by the United Service and Service Workers of Rhode Island (the intervenor union) on behalf of RITBA employees pursuant to chapter 7 of title 28 of the Rhode Island General Laws, entitled the Labor Relations Act. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 42-35-15.
The incumbent union and RITBA entered a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), effective July 1, 2002 to June 30 2005.[1] In September 2004, the parties began negotiating a new CBA in anticipation of the expiration of the then-existing CBA. On January 25, 2005, the parties tentatively agreed to a new three-year CBA, effective July 1 2005 to June 30, 2008. On January 26, 2005, RITBA’s Board of Directors voted to accept the CBA, and two days later covered employees voted to ratify it.
The new CBA significantly altered the terms of the employees’ health care coverage by requiring RITBA to fully subsidize the medical services deductibles for each covered employee. On February 1, 2005, prior to the effective date of the new CBA, the covered employees began to receive the newly agreed-upon health care benefits. On March 16, 2005, RITBA and the incumbent union executed the new CBA.
On April 25, 2005 the intervenor union filed the petition for an election pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 28-7-9(b). On April 26, 2005, RITBA filed a letter of objection, and on May 20, 2005, the incumbent union and RITBA each filed a Motion to Dismiss with accompanying memoranda. On the same day, an administrator from the Labor Board conducted an informal hearing. All of the parties were present at the hearing. On May 27, 2005, the intervenor union filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the Motions to Dismiss. Thereafter, the Labor Board reviewed the filings and unanimously voted to grant the Motions to Dismiss on June 14, 2005. On August 17, 2005, the Labor Board issued a Decision and Order of Dismissal (Decision). Essentially, the Labor Board concluded that while the new CBA did not toll the window period for filing an election petition, the executed agreement acted as a bar to the petition. The intervenor union timely appealed the Decision to this Court.
The Superior Court reviews the decisions of the PUC and other state administrative agencies pursuant to § 42-35-15. Section 42-35-15(g) provides:
“The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences conclusions, or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error or [sic] law;
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”
This Court’s review of an administrative agency decision under § 42-35-15 is limited in scope. See Mine Safety Appliances v. Berry, 620 A.2d 1255, 1259 (R.I. 1993). Thus, “[w]hen a trial court reviews a decision of an agency, the court may affirm or reverse the decision or may remand the case for further proceedings.” Birchwood Realty, Inc. v. Grant, 627 A.2d 827, 834 (R.I. 1993) (citing § 42-35-15(g)). It must give great deference to an agency’s final decision. See Murray v. McWalters, 868 A.2d 659, 662 (R.I. 2005) () (quoting In re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921, 926 (R.I. 2001)).
This Court’s review is restricted “to an examination of the certified record to determine if there is any legally competent evidence therein to support the agency’s decision.” Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Assocs., Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 805 (R.I. 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting Barrington Sch. Comm. v. R.I. State Labor Relations Bd., 608 A.2d 1126, 1138 (R.I. 1992)). However, it is well settled that “[q]uestions of law . . . are not binding upon the court and may be reviewed to determine what the law is and its applicability to the facts.” Narragansett Wire Co. v. Norberg, 118 R.I. 596, 607, 376 A.2d 1, 6 (R.I. 1977).
The intervenor union asserts that it had the right to petition for an election on behalf of the employees pursuant to § 28-7-9(b)(2), entitled “Rules and regulations” and otherwise known as the “contract-bar” doctrine. The intervenor union maintains that the Labor Board misconstrued § 28-7-9(b)(2) and Section 16 020 CRIR 8.06.1(c) of the Labor Board’s Regulations when it decided not to conduct an election, and that it abused its discretion when it determined that the new CBA barred the petition.
In response, RITBA contends that the incumbent union’s reliance on decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to explain the “contract-bar” doctrine was misplaced. It asserts that the National Labor Relations Act specifically excludes states and its political subdivisions from its provisions, and that RITBA, as a quasi-state agency, is not bound by NLRB policy, precedent, or doctrines. See National Labor Relations Act 29 U.S.C. § 152(2). RITBA next maintains that pursuant to § 28-7-9(b)(2), the Labor Board has discretionary authority to consider petitions for an election, and that it did not abuse its discretion when it found the new CBA acted as a bar to the petition. RITBA finally contends that the intervenor union should be estopped from challenging the new CBA under the doctrine of laches because it had full knowledge of the agreement before it was signed.
In a reply memorandum, the intervenor union asserts that laches should not apply because it was statutorily prohibited from challenging the proposed agreement outside a prescribed window of opportunity. See § 28-7-9(b)(2). In an accompanying affidavit, the Financial Secretary-Treasurer for the intervenor union stated that at the informal hearing, he told RITBA and an administrator from the Labor Board that his union had no intention of repudiating the new CBA and causing labor strife if it were to prevail in the proposed election.
At issue in this case is the interpretation of Rhode Island Labor Relations Act and its related regulations. It is well established that the interpretation of a statute is a question of law. See Palazzolo v. State ex rel. Tavares, 746 A.2d 707, 711 (R.I. 2000). Where the language of a statute “is clear on its face, then the plain meaning of the statute must be given effect and this Court should not look elsewhere to discern the legislative intent.” Retirement Bd. of Employees’ Retirement System of State v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270, 297 (R.I. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). When “a statutory provision is unambiguous, there is no room for statutory construction and [this Court] must apply the statute as written.” Id.
In Rhode Island “[o]ur process of statutory construction further involves a ‘practice of construing and applying apparently inconsistent statutory provisions in such a manner so as to avoid the inconsistency.’” Kells v. Town of Lincoln, 874 A.2d 204, 212 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Montaquila v. St. Cyr, 433 A.2d 206, 214 (R.I. 1981)). Furthermore, where “the provisions of a statute are unclear or subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the construction given by the agency charged with its enforcement is entitled to weight and deference, as long as that construction is not clearly erroneous or unauthorized.” Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. v. McConaghy, 849 A.2d 340, 345 (R.I. 2004). However, “[a]n agency cannot modify the statutory provisions under which it acquired power, unless such an intent is clearly expressed in the statute.” Little v. Conflict of Interest Commission, 121 R.I. 232, 236, 397 A.2d 884, 886 (1979).
With respect to an agency’s regulations, when they “are duly promulgated by an administrative agency like the commission, pursuant to a specific grant of legal authority to do so, [they] are legislative rules that carry the force and effect of law and thus enjoy a presumption of validity.” In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 732 A.2d 55, 75 (R.I. 1999). Great deference is accorded “to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its enabling law, as reflected in its regulations . . . .” Id. at 76 (quoting Parkway Towers Associates v. Godfrey, 688 A.2d 1289, 1293 (R.I. 1997)). Furthermore, “deference will be accorded to an administrative agency when it interprets [enabling provisions] whose administration and enforcement have been entrusted to the agency . . . even when the agency’s interpretation is not the only permissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial