DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS PRAYER FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS PRAYER FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF"

Transcription

1 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT PAUL A. DOUGHTY, individually and as President of : LOCAL 799 OF THE INTERNATIONAL : ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, A.F.L.-C.I.O., and : LOCAL 799 OF THE INTERNATIONAL : ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, A.F.L.-C.I.O., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : C.A. No. PC : JORGE ELORZA, in his official capacity as Mayor of the : City of Providence, THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, by : and through its treasurer, James J. Lombardi, III, and the : PROVIDENCE FIRE DEPARTMENT, through the : Providence Commissioner of Public Safety, Steven Pare, : Defendants. : DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS PRAYER FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Defendants, Jorge Elorza in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Providence, The City of Providence by and through its treasurer James J. Lombardi, III ( City ), and The Providence Fire Department through the Providence Commissioner of Public Safety Steven Pare, submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs Prayer for Declaratory Relief. I. INTRODUCTION The Court has requested a preliminary description of the law underlying this case. Plaintiffs declaratory prayer, which seeks a declaration that the effects of the City s lawful unilateral reorganization of its fire department platoon structure are subject to grievance arbitration, must be denied for at least five reasons. First, our Supreme Court in Town of N. Kingstown v. Int l Ass n of Firefighters, Local 1651 AFL-CIO, 107 A.3d 304, (R.I. 2015) ( North Kingstown ) firmly held that a municipality has a duty and a non-delegable management right to unilaterally reorganize its fire department platoon structure, and that the reorganization 1

2 and any necessary effects here, the necessary change from a 42-hour to 56-hour workweek cannot as a matter of law be subjected to mandatory bargaining or arbitration. Second, and relatedly, the declaratory prayer is premature because it is based on Plaintiffs June 30, 2015 demand for grievance arbitration which, by its terms, seeks only to arbitrate the non-arbitrable platoon reorganization and change in workweek hours necessary to effectuate the reorganization. Third, even assuming there is presently a valid collective bargaining agreement ( CBA ) between the parties (and as shown below, there is not), and further assuming that Plaintiffs eventually file a grievance over the implementation of the effects of the reorganization (if ongoing negotiations fail to produce an agreement), a resolution of those effects falls outside the clear and unambiguous scope of the grievance provision of the purported CBA. Fourth, although the City denies that the reorganization will affect other provisions of the purported CBA as Plaintiffs claim, North Kingstown and the seminal case of Lime Rock Fire Dist. v. R.I. State Labor Relations Bd., 673 A.2d 51 (R.I. 1996) ( Lime Rock ), squarely hold that where an employer and a firefighters union fail to reach agreement over the effects of a unilateral management change, the determination of those effects is subject if anywhere to interest arbitration only, and is not subject to grievance arbitration as Plaintiffs claim. Here, however, following the clear holdings of both North Kingstown and Lime Rock, Plaintiffs have failed to timely seek interest arbitration under the Firefighters Arbitration Act ( FFAA ), R.I. Gen. Laws and, as a result, have irrevocably waived any right they may have had to do so. Fifth, the purported CBA on which the Union relies is void and unenforceable, as the City Council did not have the authority to ratify a five or a six year agreement under state or local law. See R.I. Gen. Laws (firefighter contract may not extend beyond three 2

3 years); Providence Teachers Union v. Providence Sch. Bd., 689 A.2d 384, 388 (R.I. 1996) ( Providence Teachers Union I ) (collective bargaining agreement void and unenforceable where it was not lawfully ratified by City Council). As a result, the arbitration clause in that CBA is of no legal force or effect. See Providence Teachers Union v. Providence Sch. Bd., 689 A.2d 388 (R.I. 1997) ( Providence Teachers Union II ) (general arbitration agreement contained in public sector labor contract does not survive expiration of the labor contract). For all these reasons, Plaintiffs prayer for declaratory relief must fail. II. FACTS A. The City s Decision to Reorganize the Fire Department into Three Platoons. On May 20, 2015, the Mayor of the City of Providence, Jorge Elorza, notified Paul Doughty, President of Local 799 of the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO ( Union ) by a hand-delivered letter that the City s Commissioner of Public Safety, Steven Pare, has made the decision to reorganize the City s Fire Department effective immediately and that the Mayor s Office fully supports and ratifies the Public Safety Commissioner s decision. (Exhibit A attached hereto). In the letter, the Mayor went on to explain that: As part of this reorganization, the Public Safety Commissioner has decided to organize the line firefighting and rescue personnel, including those firefighters assigned to communications, in the City s Fire Department into three divisions, effective immediately. (Id.). The Mayor described the schedule to which the three line firefighting and rescue divisions would be assigned, but he indicated that the [i]mplementation of the schedule may be suspended during good faith negotiations with [the Union] over the effects of the reorganization on firefighting and rescue personnel, but not beyond June 30, (Id.). The Mayor further explained that [i]n the absence of a different agreement regarding the effects of the 3

4 reorganization, the number of hours of vacation, sick, personal and other time off along with annual base salaries will not change. (Id.). He also said that the City would adhere to the federal overtime requirements as set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act, as the City was obligated to do anyway. (Id). Finally, the Mayor concluded the letter by specifically inviting the Union to engage in collective bargaining over the effects of the reorganization on members of the Union. (Id.). B. The Union s Request to Bargain and the City s Response. On May 22, 2015, the Union President sent an to the City s Public Safety Commissioner and the City s Fire Chief with the following subject line: Request to Bargain. (Exhibit B attached hereto). Through that , the Union President made the following requests: (1) to bargain over the proposed change to the shift (platoon, group) structure as outlined in the recently issued general order (GO 68) ; and (2) to bargain over the implementation of the proposed change to the shift schedule as outlined in the recently issued general order (GO 68). (Id.). 1 In addition, the Union President stated: It s the union s position that both of these matters are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and represents [sic] a violation [sic] the collective bargaining agreement currently in effect between the parties. (Exhibit B). The Union President also requested that General Order 68 be rescinded immediately. (Id.). On Friday, May 22, 2015, the Fire Chief sent an to the Union President saying that he and the Commissioner were willing to meet the Union to discuss General Order 68. (Exhibit B). He suggested meeting on May 27, May 28 or May 29 at various times. (Id.). 1 General Order 68, dated May 21, 2015, simply states: Please be advised that the Providence Fire Department has been reorganized into a three-platoon system. The implementation of the effects of the three platoon system has been temporarily delayed as we anticipate engaging in good faith negotiations with your local union over those effects. Over the upcoming days and weeks, we will be developing policies and procedures to transition the department to the three-platoon system as smoothly and efficiently as possible. (Exhibit C attached hereto). 4

5 Then, on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, the Commissioner responded to the Union President by . (Exhibit D attached hereto). In that , the Commissioner made clear: The City is pleased to discuss the effects of its decision to implement a three platoon structure in the fire department. Please be advised, however, that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has recently held that the decision to implement [a] three platoon structure is a management right, and that this management right is not subject to mandatory bargaining and need not be submitted to arbitration. Town of North Kingstown v. Int l Ass n of Firefighters, Local 1651, 107 A.3d 304, (R.I. 2015). In fact, the Court made clear that the City could not lawfully bargain away that management right and responsibility, even if wanted to. In accordance with Rhode Island law, the City is hereby pleased to discuss and collectively bargain the effects of its decision only. Kindly advise us of your availability over the next few days so that we can choose a mutually convenient time to meet for that discussion. (Id.). The Commissioner proposed meeting on May 27, May 28 or May 29. (Id.). The Union and the City agreed to meet on May 27, C. Bargaining over the Effects of the City s Decision to Reorganize the Fire Department into Three Platoons. The City and the Union held their first bargaining meeting over the effects of the City s decision to reorganize the Fire Department into three platoons on May 27, 2015, and they have held six additional bargaining meetings on May 29, June 11, June 29, July 1, July 13, and July 28, The City and the Union have exchanged numerous written and verbal proposals during those meetings. Those proposals involved, inter alia, changes to the existing terms of the purported CBA affected by the reorganization. For example, the parties have each proposed to change the existing salaries set forth in the purported CBA, while other proposals have sought to change the language of the purported CBA as it relates to the provision of sick and vacation leave, overtime rates of pay and platoon bidding. At the parties meeting on June 29, 2015, the City s representatives told the Union that the City had made the decision to postpone the full implementation of the effects of the 5

6 reorganization, and specifically the revised work schedule, until August 1, 2015, in order to provide the parties with additional time in which they might reach a different agreement through negotiations. (See Exhibit E attached hereto). The Mayor then sent the Union written notification on July 1, 2015, stating that the full implementation of the effects of the reorganization would occur on August 1, 2015, in the absence of a different agreement, and that [t]he City will also remain available to continue our good faith negotiations with [the Union] over the effects of the reorganization on [the Union s] members. (Id.). To date, the City and the Union have not reached agreement on the effects of the City s decision to reorganize the Fire Department into three platoons. To date, the Union has also not submitted a demand for interest arbitration over those effects. D. The Union s Grievance and Demand for Grievance Arbitration. On May 26, 2015, the Union s Vice President, Derek Silva, filed a written grievance with the Fire Chief ( Grievance # ). (Exhibit F attached hereto). Within the grievance document, the Union explained its Complaint as follows: Violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Articles I, II and VI, and it listed the Date of Occurrence as being 20 May (Id.). Within the Narrative of the grievance document, the Union stated: It is the position of the grievant that the Public Safety Commissioner or his designee has violated the provisions set forth most specifically in Article VI of the CBA when he reorganized the shift schedule increasing the hourly workweek. As a remedy the grievant requests that the City, including but not limited to, cease and desist from this practice, and make the affected grievant whole by reestablishing the 42 hour workweek/4 platoon shift schedule. (Id.) (emphasis added). By letter dated June 5, 2015, the Fire Chief denied Grievance # (Exhibit G attached hereto). 6

7 On or about June 30, 2015, the Union filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. (Exhibit H attached hereto). However, rather than filing a demand for interest arbitration in accordance with the FFAA, R.I. Gen. Laws , the Union demanded grievance arbitration arising out of Grievance # In its written demand for arbitration, the Union alleges that the Commissioner violated the provisions set forth most specifically in Article VI of the CBA when he reorganized the shift schedule increasing the hourly workweek, and as a remedy, the Union seeks to require the City, including but not limited to, cease and desist from this practice, and make the affected grievant whole by reestablishing the 42 hour workweek/4 platoon shift schedule. (Id.) (emphasis added). On Friday, July 17, 2015, the City s undersigned counsel notified the American Arbitration Association that the grievance underlying the Union s June 30, 2015 demand for arbitration was substantively not arbitrable. (Exhibit I attached hereto). After receiving that notice, the AAA still appointed an arbitrator for the Union s Grievance # 05-15, and it has scheduled the arbitration hearing for December 16, (Exhibit J attached hereto). III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 3 2 As of June 30, 2015, when the Union filed its demand for arbitration with respect to Grievance # 05-15, the Union had already waived its right to interest arbitration under the FFAA. See R.I. Gen. Laws ; Lime Rock, 673 A.2d at ( Having organized pursuant to the FFAA, the union failed to exhaust its remedy under the FFAA, namely, to seek [interest] arbitration for unresolved issues. Moreover, because the union failed to comply with the provisions of (3) and in respect to submitting unresolved issues to [interest] arbitration within the designated period, it has waived its right to pursue that remedy. ). 3 Defendants respectfully submit that the Court s present consideration and possible ruling on Plaintiffs declaratory prayer or on any of Plaintiffs claims is premature because, inter alia, Plaintiffs have not yet served process on Defendants and, thus, Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to serve an answer or responsive motion in this case. In these circumstances, a ruling on any of Plaintiffs requested relief is premature. See, e.g., Town of N. Kingstown v. Int l Ass n of Firefighters, Local 1651, AFL-CIO, 65 A.3d 480, 482 n.4 (R.I. 2014) (Order) (granting stay of trial court s order and final judgment because, inter alia, [a]t the time the hearing justice issued his decision, the union had not yet filed an answer to the town s complaint ); see also In re Stephanie B, 826 A.2d 985, (R.I. 2003) (holding that due process considerations mandate that a court is without personal jurisdiction over a party, and cannot enter orders or judgment implicating that party s property or interests, until, inter aila, the party has been served with process). 7

8 A. Under North Kingstown, the City s Non-Delegable Right to Reorganize the Platoon Structure of the Fire Department, and the Resulting Necessary Change to Workweek Hours, Cannot As A Matter of Law Be Subject to Arbitration. In North Kingstown, our Supreme Court reaffirmed a municipality s settled management right to unilaterally implement certain managerial decisions including the decision to reorganize its fire department platoon structure. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at ( the decision to implement the three-platoon structure is a management right of the town. ). North Kingstown involved that town s unilateral fire department platoon reorganization from four platoons to three identical to the City s reorganization here. See id. at Although the procedural history of the case was complex, 4 relevant here is that the appeal brought by the town concerned, inter alia, the trial court s final judgment that the town s platoon reorganization, although a managerial decision not subject to bargaining or arbitration, was nevertheless unlawful because the reorganization by necessity effected changes to the firefighters workweek hours and to other terms and conditions of employment traditionally subject to mandatory bargaining and arbitration. See id. at That procedural history included, inter alia: (i) the union s untimely filing of two interest arbitrations concerning the parties failure to reach agreement on a collective bargaining agreement; (ii) the union filing an unfair labor practice charge with the State Labor Relations Board concerning the platoon reorganization; (iii) the union filing suit in the Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the reorganization; and (iv) the Town filing suit in the Superior Court also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. at The union in that case also had filed dozens of contractual grievances and demands for arbitration challenging the implementation of the reorganization to three platoons, and litigation ensued over whether those grievances were substantively arbitrable. See Town of N. Kingstown v. N. Kingstown Firefighters, Local 1651, C.A. No. WC , 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 192, at *1 (R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2012), aff d, in part, rev d, in part, North Kingstown, 107 A.3d 304 (R.I. 2015). 5 As the Supreme Court put it, [a]t the heart of this litigation is the town s unilateral implementation of a threeplatoon structure and the effects of that reorganization, including the change to a twenty-four hours on, forty-eight hours off schedule. Id. at

9 In reversing that portion of the trial court s final judgment, the Supreme Court began by making clear not only that a municipality has an unfettered management right to unilaterally implement managerial decisions such as platoon restructuring, but also that that management right cannot be abridged or delegated, whether by contract, arbitration, or otherwise: [T]here are certain matters that may not be bargained away by a public employer. A public employer may not bargain away its statutory duties. Likewise, it is a basic rule of law that [public employers] are not at liberty to bargain away their powers and responsibilities with respect to the essence of the[ir] *** mission. Additionally, a public employer is not empowered to delegate to arbitrators *** [its] statutory obligation[s]; or decisions *** directly related to the essence of [its] *** mission. This prohibition can even hold true notwithstanding the fact that the action taken related to the employer s mission may impact something that is otherwise a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at 313 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 6 See also Local 2334 of the Int l Ass n of Firefighters v. Town of N. Providence, C.A. No. PC , 2009 R.I. Super. LEXIS 159, at *14 -*20 (R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 31, 2009) (Lanphear, J.) (hereafter, Local 2334 ) (same). The Supreme Court went on to emphasize that a municipality s management right includes the right to implement the managerial decision free from union or arbitral interference: In a related vein, it is well-established that there are certain managerial decisions, which lie at the core of entrepreneurial control over an organization. With respect to these decisions, a union should not be able to dictate to the employer because such matters are strictly within the province of management. Accordingly, the choice itself of whether or not to implement a particular management decision is not subject to mandatory bargaining and need not be submitted to arbitration. This holds true notwithstanding the fact that such a decision may have effects sometimes profound effects upon th[e] [terms and] conditions of employment. Id. at (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Local 2334, 2012 R.I. 6 In reaffirming that a municipality s management right is absolute and cannot be delegated or diminished by contract, arbitration, or otherwise, the Supreme Court relied on its own precedent in Vose v. R.I. Bhd. of Corr. Officers, 587 A.2d 913, 915 (R.I. 1991), N. Providence Sch. Comm. v. N. Providence Fed n of Teachers, 945 A.2d 339, 347 (R.I. 2008), and State, Dep t of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hosps. v. R.I. Council 94, A.F.S.C.M.E. AFL-CIO, 692 A.2d 318, 324 (R.I. 1997). See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at

10 Super. LEXIS 159 at* ( decisions that are purely managerial are not mandatory subjects of negotiation or arbitration. ). The Court also found support from several sister states that have held, inter alia, department reorganizations to be management rights falling outside the scope of collective bargaining. Id. at The National Labor Relations Board has similarly held that such managerial decisions may not be subject to mandatory bargaining. See, e.g., Odebrecht Contractors of California, Inc., 324 NLRB 396, (1997) (decision to change schedule and eliminate shift was not a mandatory subject of bargaining). 8 Thus, in North Kingstown, the Supreme Court reaffirmed two bedrock principles regarding a municipality s management right to reorganize its fire department: first, the right is absolute and non-delegable and, therefore, cannot be limited by contract, arbitration, or otherwise; and second, even if the implementation of a managerial decision by necessity changes one or more terms and conditions of employment normally deemed a subject of bargaining, those changes like the implementation itself are not subject to bargaining or arbitration, since a contrary result would impermissibly encroach on the municipality s ability to exercise that management right. As the underlying facts in the present case are nearly identical in all material respects to those in North Kingstown, the same result must obtain here, and Plaintiffs declaratory prayer (as well as Plaintiffs other claims) must be denied. The City like the town in North Kingstown 7 See, e.g., State ex rel. Quiring v. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 173, Mountain Lake, Minnesota, 623 N.W.2d 634, 640 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that reorganization of organizational structure is a matter of inherent managerial policy that does not require negotiations with bargaining units); Appeal of International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO Local 1088, 123 N.H. 404, 462 A.2d 98, 100 (N.H. 1983) (upholding determination that alteration of fire department's "platoon size was a subject falling solely within management discretion"); Borough of Atlantic Highlands v. Atlantic Highlands PBA Local 242, 192 N.J. Super. 71, 469 A.2d 80, 85 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1983), certif. den., 96 N.J. 293, 475 A.2d 588 (N.J. 1984) (holding that, based on particular facts, "issue of shift changes is nonnegotiable"). 8 [W]ith respect to labor law issues, th[e Supreme] Court has frequently looked to the voluminous body of federal case law for guidance. North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at 313 (quoting Town of Burrillville, 921 A.2d at 120). 10

11 accomplished the platoon reorganization pursuant to its authority, granted to the Commissioner of Public Safety by the City s Home Rule Charter, to organize and control fire department officers and personnel. 9 As in North Kingstown, the City s Home Rule Charter was also ratified by the General Assembly making it a special law of the state. P.L. 1981, ch In a valid exercise of that authority, the City on May 20, 2015 reorganized the fire department s platoon structure from four platoons to three, identical to the reorganization in North Kingstown. As the City s platoon reorganization constituted a lawful exercise of a non-delegable management right, the reorganization, as a matter of law, cannot be the subject of mandatory bargaining or arbitration. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at Therefore, Plaintiffs declaratory prayer which is based on the June 30, 2015 grievance arbitration demand seeking only to arbitrate the City s reorganiz[ation] [of] the shift schedule increasing the hourly workweek, and limits the relief sought to reestablishing the 42 hour workweek/4 platoon schedule must be denied. 11 Similarly, to the extent Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the platoon reorganization 9 The reorganization was accomplished by the City s Commissioner of Public Safety, Defendant Mr. Pare, who, under Section 1001(b) of the City s Home Rule Charter, is [t]he head of the fire department and h[as] the authority to appoint, remove, organize and control the officers and personnel of the fire department and all other attaches thereof, subject to applicable personnel rules[.] City of Providence Home Rule Charter ( Charter ) 1001(b); see also id. at 905(m) (exempting firemen under the jurisdiction of the department of public safety from the City s personnel system). As stated in Mayor Elorza s May 20, 2015 letter to Union President Doughty, the City of Providence Public Safety Commissioner has made the decision to reorganize the City s Fire Department effective immediately and [t]he Mayor s Office fully supports and ratifies the Public Safety Commissioner s decision. (Exhibit A). 10 In Providence Teachers Union I, the Supreme Court recognized that [t]he Providence Home Rule Charter was ratified by the General Assembly in P.L. 1981, ch A.2d at 386, fn. 2. The Court went on to find that the General Assembly s Ratification Act, P.L. 1981, ch. 37, repealed all General Assembly acts and parts of acts pertaining to the city of Providence that were inconsistent with the Providence Home Rule Charter provisions. Id. at 388. Thus, the Court held, if there was any conflict or inconsistency between the earlier enacted general labor laws at issue in that case and the later enacted Home Rule Charter, the Charter certainly trumps the general labor laws insofar as they have application to the city of Providence. Id. (emphasis added); see also Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123, 129 (R.I. 2006) (a legislatively ratified home rule charter is a "a special act [that] takes precedence over any inconsistent provisions of the general laws.") (citations omitted). 11 Plaintiffs have admitted in their Motion to Compel that their grievance arbitration demand is limited to the platoon reorganization and change in hours. See Mot. to Compel at 2 ( The subject of the grievance reflected in the June 30 demand is the switch to three platoons and the change in the 42 hour contractually-specified workweek threatened by the City ). 11

12 violates the purported CBA s 42-hour workweek provision, its prayer must also be denied. As the Supreme Court recognized in North Kingstown, implementation of managerial decisions may have effects sometimes profound effects upon th[e] [terms and conditions] of employment, and when those effects necessarily include a change to employees hours of work set out in a collective bargaining agreement, that change is not subject to arbitration regardless of the contract s workweek hours provision. North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at 313 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Among the authorities the Supreme Court relied on was Vose, 587 A.2d at , which held that a CBA provision barring a department director from ordering mandatory overtime a managerial decision necessary to carry out the director s statutory duties was illegal and invalid because it is an improper attempt to contractually restrict the director s statutory powers. 12 A contrary holding here for example, that the purported CBA s 42-hour workweek provision controls, and/or that the necessary change to a 56-hour workweek is subject to arbitration would impermissibly curtail the City s ability to exercise its management right and delegate the City s non-delegable authority to the Union (or to an arbitrator, as Plaintiffs seek to do) in direct violation of North Kingstown and the binding authority cited therein. 13 See also 12 Plaintiffs attempt to rely on the purported CBA s management rights clause, in which the City retains all rights and responsibilities granted by law to manage, control and direct its Fire Department except as specifically provided herein[,] see CBA Art. II, for its contention that the City s absolute right to implement management decisions is curtailed by the CBA. Mot. at Plaintiffs argument fails because, under North Kingstown and, inter alia, Vose, the City s management right cannot be restricted by contract. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at 315; Vose, 587 A.2d at As a result, to the extent Article II is read to curtail the City s management right, that provision is illegal and void ab initio. See id. Moreover, to the extent that Article II is read to conflict with the City s rights under its Home Rule Charter, which, inter alia, vests the Commissioner with the authority to appoint, remove, organize and control the officers and personnel of the fire department, City of Providence Home Rule Charter 1001(b), then Article II must give way to the Charter. See Providence Teachers Union I, 689 A.2d at 388 (finding that Charter certainly trumps conflicting general laws); see also Santilli, 892 A.2d at That workweek hours must by necessity be changed in order to effectuate the City s lawful platoon reorganization is undisputed. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Grievance Arbitration Under Collective Bargaining Agreement ( Motion to Compel ), filed in this matter on July 20, 2015, acknowledges that [b]y necessity, if the City were to switch to a three-platoon structure, the hours worked in a week would be dramatically increased. See Mot. to Compel at 3. 12

13 Providence Hosp. v. NLRB, 93 F.3d 1012, 1018 (1st Cir. 1996) ( [the union] had no right... to veto the decision to merge... ); accord Intern. Ass n. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 473 F.2d 549, 558 (1st Cir. 1972). 14 In sum, under the clear and binding precedent of North Kingstown, the City s unilateral platoon restructuring was a lawful exercise of the City s management right that cannot be subject to mandatory bargaining or arbitration. As a result, Plaintiffs declaratory prayer must be denied. B. Plaintiffs Declaratory Prayer is Premature Because It Is Based on Grievance # and the June 30 Arbitration Demand Seeking Only to Arbitrate the Non- Arbitrable Platoon Reorganization and Necessary Change to Workweek Hours. Equally fatal to Plaintiffs declaratory judgment prayer is that it is based on Plaintiffs June 30, 2015 arbitration demand, which seeks to arbitrate matters namely, the platoon reorganization and the change to workweek hours necessary to effectuate the reorganization that North Kingstown and the authorities cited therein held are not arbitrable as a matter of law. Indeed, the arbitration demand states: Claim Description It is the position of the grievant that the Public Safety Commissioner or his designee has violated the provisions set forth most specifically in Article VI of the CBA when he reorganized the shift schedule increasing the hourly workweek. As remedy (sic) the grievant requests that the City, including but not limited to (sic), cease and desist from this practice, and make the affected grievant whole by reestablishing the 42 hour workweek/4 platoon shift schedule. (Exhibit H). Thus, the arbitration demand drafted by Plaintiffs expressly seeks only to arbitrate the reorganized [] shift schedule increasing the hourly workweek, and limits the relief 14 Northeast Airlines, Inc. involved a proposed merger of two airlines and a request to bargain over the effects of that decision by a union of one of the merging companies. Although the Court recognized a potential right to engage in effects bargaining in such a circumstance under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq., it emphasized the following limitation on such effects bargaining: To allow the Union to force a company to bargain about the effects of its management decisions to the extent of forcing it to forego the proposed change in operations would be in effect to take away from it the freedom to make the decision in the first place. We have no doubt but that an employer, bargaining about the effect of a relocation on employment conditions, could refuse to discuss as unreasonable any labor protective terms that would make it prohibitively expensive to move. Id. at

14 sought to a decision requiring the City to reestablish[] the 42 hour workweek/4 platoon shift schedule. (Id.). Grievance # similarly challenges the Commissioner s decision to reorganize[] the shift schedule, and seeks to reestablish[] the 42 hour workweek/4 platoon shift schedule. (Exhibit F). As thoroughly set out in Section III.A. supra, North Kingstown makes clear that these are precisely the matters that may not be subject to either interest or grievance arbitration because the platoon reorganization and necessary change in workweek hours fall squarely within the City s absolute and non-delegable management right. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at (holding that the decision to implement a three-platoon structure and resulting change to workweek hours is a management right that is not subject to mandatory bargaining and need not be submitted to arbitration ); accord R.I. Council 94, 692 A.2d at (holding that department director s implementation of managerial decision to limit the number of consecutive shifts union employees could work was not subject to arbitration because director could not delegate to arbitrators the department s statutory obligation to protect its patients safety). As a result, even assuming Plaintiffs are entitled to seek grievance arbitration over the reorganization s effects (and as shown below, they are not), the matters on which Plaintiffs have sought arbitration are, as a matter of law, not arbitrable. See N. Kingstown Sch. Comm. v. Crouch, 808 A.2d 1074, 1078 (R.I. 2002) (substantive arbitrability is a matter for judicial determination ). Because Plaintiffs declaratory prayer is founded on an arbitration demand that seeks to arbitrate a dispute that is not arbitrable, the declaratory prayer must be denied. See id. ("an arbitrator is powerless to arbitrate that which is not arbitrable in the first place.") (internal quotations and citation omitted). 14

15 C. Even Assuming a Valid CBA Exists and Assuming Further that Plaintiffs Subsequently File a Grievance Over the Effects of the Reorganization, Resolution of Those Effects Falls Outside the Scope of the CBA s Grievance Dispute Clause. In their Brief, Plaintiffs wrongly assert that, to the extent the platoon reorganization affects terms and conditions of employment other than workweek hours, resolution of those effects falls within the scope of the purported CBA s grievance provision. An examination of the grievance provision and settled law, however, shows the opposite to be true. Thus, because Plaintiffs declaratory prayer seeks a declaration that the effects of the reorganization are subject to grievance arbitration, their declaratory prayer fails as a matter of law. It is black-letter law that grievance arbitration is a purely a contractual right, and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Crouch, 808 A.2d at 1078 (quoting AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Comm. Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986)). Thus, [n]o one is under a duty to arbitrate unless with clear language he [or she] has agreed to do so. Sacco v. Cranston Sch. Dep t, 53 A.3d 147, 150 (R.I. 2012) (citations omitted). In other words, an arbitrator is powerless to arbitrate that which is not arbitrable in the first place. Crouch, 808 A.2d at 1078 (quoting State Dept. of Children, Youth and Families v. R.I. Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 713 A.2d 1250, (R.I. 1998)). In determining whether a dispute is arbitrable under a grievance provision contained in a collective bargaining agreement, the Courts look to [w]hether [the] particular collective bargaining agreement contains clear language creating a duty to arbitrate [the] particular dispute[.] Sacco, 53 A.3d at 150 (citations omitted). This is a judicial determination. Id. In the absence of clear language in the CBA providing that plaintiffs... have a right to submit grievances to the arbitration and grievance procedures, no such right will be read into the contract. Id. Indeed, the Courts must determine whether there is an express agreement to 15

16 arbitrate the alleged dispute, and that express agreement must be clearly and unambiguously set forth in the CBA. Id. (citing Crouch, 808 A.2d at 1079). In the absence of such an express agreement, the dispute is not arbitrable. See, e.g., id. ( we cannot clearly and unambiguously discern any provision in the CBA specifying that coaches are entitled to the grievance procedures afforded to teachers by Article VI of the CBA. ); Crouch, 808 A.2d at 1079 (CBA did not clearly and unambiguously provide[] for the arbitration of disputes relating to the dismissal of a tenured teacher for cause. ); City of Providence v. R.I. Laborers Dist. Council, Local Union 1033, R.I. Super. LEXIS 172, *32 (R.I. Super. Nov. 15, 2012) ( Local Union 1033) (Procaccini, J.) (finding collateral side agreement was not clearly covered by the express terms of the CBA s grievance and arbitration clause). The relevant portion of the purported CBA s grievance provision states: ARTICLE XVI Section 1 Grievance Procedure Alleged grievances of the members of the bargaining unit in respect to wages, rates of pay or other terms and conditions of employment arising under this contract or in connection with the interpretation thereof shall be handled in accordance with the following grievance procedures[.] [emphasis added] Moreover, the purported CBA s arbitration clause contains the following express limitation on an arbitrator s authority: the arbitrator shall not have the power to add to or subtract from the terms and conditions of this agreement. Looking at this grievance and arbitration provision of the purported CBA, it is clear that the parties did not expressly agree through clear and unambiguous language to arbitrate a resolution of the effects negotiations arising out of the implementation of a lawful management right. To the contrary, the parties agreed to arbitrate only those disputes arising under this contract or in connection with the interpretation [of this contract]. In other words, the parties 16

17 expressly limited the grievance provision s application to an interpretation of the lawful provisions of the CBA itself. See Local Union 1033, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 172, at* 24 ( [i]f the parties intended arbitration for any agreement between themselves, the authority of the arbitrator would not have been limited to the CBA itself. ) (emphasis added) (quoting USW, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 413 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2005)). The Union, however, is not seeking an interpretation of this contract. Instead, it is seeking (1) to challenge the City s lawful exercise of its management right to reorganize the fire department and (2) to resolve unresolved collective bargaining issues arising out of the parties negotiation over the effects of that management right. The former is not arbitrable as a matter of law, for the reasons discussed supra at III(A)-(B). See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at The latter is also not arbitrable because it involves terms either that are not included in the CBA or that will be added to the CBA as a result of the City s exercise and implementation of its management right. For example, in the parties effects negotiations, they each are proposing a change to firefighters salaries set forth in the CBA as a result of the increased scheduled hours of work necessary to effectuate the reorganization. Other proposals have sought to change the language of the purported CBA as it relates to the provision of sick and vacation leave, overtime rates of pay and platoon bidding. Indeed, the whole purpose of the effects negotiation is to add to the CBA, to the extent necessary, so that the parties know what happens in the wake of a lawful unilateral change. The parties have not expressly authorized an arbitrator to accomplish this task. Instead, the parties have clearly and unambiguously limited an arbitrator s authority through their express agreement that the arbitrator shall not have the power to add to or subtract from the terms and conditions of this agreement. 17

18 To the extent that the collective bargaining agreement purports to dictate exercise of or restraint of a statutory power or duty, it is unlawful, and that provision is void. See Vose, 587 A.2d at So, as to the decision, and terms necessary to implement the decision, any collective bargaining agreement term is void and unenforceable at arbitration. That is all that the grievance encompasses. Thus, it is not arbitrable. As to effects that flow from the change, those are subject to a duty to bargain. But, unless the collective bargaining agreement expressly contemplates submission of disagreements over effects of lawful unilateral changes to grievance arbitration, they are not arbitrable. See Sacco, 53 A.3d at 150 ( [n]o one is under a duty to arbitrate unless with clear language he [or she] has agreed to do so. )(citation omitted). Under North Kingstown, those effects are subject to the duty to bargain, and in an appropriate case may be subject to interest arbitration. They are not subject to grievance arbitration because the issues are not defined by a contract until and unless the parties reach agreement or an interest arbitrator fixes the terms of a contract. That is because grievance arbitration only arises when the parties have agreed to arbitrate under a contract. See id. An understanding of the difference between grievance and interest arbitration, and what is at issue in a so-called effects negotiation and/or arbitration, is essential to this point. Interest arbitration concerns arbitration to set the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. Grievance arbitration refers to the resolution of grievances arising under an existing agreement. City of Pawtucket v. Lodge No. 4, Fraternal Order of Police, 545 A.2d 499, 500 n.1 (R.I. 1988) (citation omitted). As one arbitrator further explained, quoting Michigan s Supreme Court: Grievance arbitration concerns disputes arising under written agreements negotiated and agreed upon by the parties. In grievance arbitration, the labor arbitrator acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. He [or she] determines the facts and seeks an interpretation of the agreement in accord with the 18

19 understanding of the parties as gleaned from the writing and the relationship. In interest arbitration, the functions and prerogatives of the arbitrator are significantly different. He [or she] is not bound by the agreement or understanding of the parties. He [or she] does not interpret a contract, he [or she] makes one [and] then imposes his [or her] concept of what the agreement ought to be on the parties AAA LEXIS 691 at *14-*15 (Arbitrator Block) (emphasis added), quoting Dearborn Fire Fighters Union v. City of Dearborn, 231 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Mich. 1975). Grievance arbitration, thus, serves to address disputes over alleged breaches of a collective bargaining agreement, while interest arbitration sets the terms of the collective bargaining agreement when the parties, after bargaining over the terms, are unable to reach agreement. With this distinction in mind, it becomes clear that unresolved issues over the effects of the implementation of a managerial decision are not subject to grievance arbitration as Plaintiffs claim. As noted above, a municipality s absolute right to implement managerial decisions cannot be delegated or limited by contract or arbitration. Any CBA provision that purports to do so is void. See Rhode Island Laborers Dist. Council v. State, 592 A.2d 144, 146 (R.I. 1991) ( there are limits to the extent that a statutory power and responsibility may be bargained away in a labor contract. ); see, e.g., id. (invalidating contractual limitation on Chief Judge s authority to discharge employees); Vose, 587 A.2d at 915 (the CBA s restriction on involuntary mandatory overtime is invalid because it is an improper attempt to contractually restrict the director s statutory powers. ) (citation omitted). In the case of the City s platoon reorganization, this means that, (a) any CBA provision that would impede a municipality in the exercise of its right to reorganize is void as a matter of law, and therefore not subject to grievance arbitration, see id., and (b) to the extent the reorganization may impact terms and conditions of employment other than those necessary to effectuate the reorganization, those effects are subject to a mandatory duty to bargain under the 19

20 FFAA. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at 315. If, as North Kingstown holds, they are mandatory subjects for bargaining, then a fortiori, they are not issues that are already fixed by a CBA. Thus, absent an express agreement by the parties that they will submit to arbitration disputes over the effects flowing from a lawful decision to reorganize, such disputes are not arbitrable. See Sacco, 53 A.3d at 150. Here, there is no such agreement to arbitrate disputes over a failure to reach agreement on the effects arising from reorganization. There is only agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under this contract. The contrary holding urged by Plaintiffs namely, that the City, by exercising its absolute right to implement a managerial decision, can nevertheless be held to have breached the CBA s terms, and through grievance arbitration can be ordered to alter or rescind the platoon reorganization is directly contrary to North Kingstown because it (1) imposes an impermissible contractual limitation on the City s management right and (2) impermissibly delegates the management right to an arbitrator. Because North Kingstown requires that the purported CBA yield to the City s absolute management right, and that any CBA terms affected by the reorganization must either be changed unilaterally to accommodate the reorganization or else opened for mandatory bargaining, a dispute over those effects plainly falls outside of the CBA s grievance provision. Again, the grievance provision is limited to disputes arising under this contract or in connection with the interpretation thereof in other words, disputes where the City has allegedly violated the CBA s lawful terms. But the grievance provision does not encompass disputes over changes outside the four corners of the CBA. Especially, it does not call for arbitration of what the contract might be in the wake of a lawful reorganization. If those disputes are subject to resolution, they are subject to interest arbitration only. See City of Pawtucket, 545 A.2d at

21 n.1 ( [i]nterest arbitration concerns arbitration to set the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement ); 2011 AAA LEXIS 691 at *15 (interest arbitrator does not interpret a contract, he [or she] makes one then imposes his [or her] concept of what the agreement ought to be on the parties ). 15 No grievance arbitrator has the power to resolve disputes arising out of failed negotiations over changes to terms and conditions of employment, unless the parties expressly so provide. In sum, although the Union s grievance does not allege that the platoon reorganization affects Plaintiffs terms and conditions of employment beyond the increase in workweek hours that is necessary to implementation of a 3-platoon system, even if other terms and conditions are impacted, the resolution of those effects is subject to negotiation, and, if anything, to interest arbitration. Thus, Plaintiffs prayer seeking a contrary declaration must be denied. As more fully explained below, that conclusion is firmly established by North Kingstown, which follows Lime Rock, 673 A.2d 51. In both decisions, the Supreme Court held that a firefighters union s sole and exclusive mechanism for resolving disputes over the effects of a lawful, unilateral managerial decision is interest arbitration. D. North Kingstown and Lime Rock Mandate That Disputes Over the Effects of a Unilateral Managerial Decision Are Subject to Interest Arbitration Only In addition to establishing a municipality s absolute management right to implement certain managerial decisions, North Kingstown also holds that the effects of the implementation of a management decision are subject to mandatory bargaining under the FFAA. If such bargaining fails to yield an agreement, unresolved issues may be resolved if anywhere only through interest arbitration under the FFAA, provided the union timely demands bargaining and 15 Of course, the Union must timely comply with the FFAA s strict time limitations, or it risks waiving its exclusive statutory remedy. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at ; see also Town of Burrillville, 921 A.2d at 120 (police union waived mid-contract bargaining over implementation of a management right). 21

22 arbitration. See North Kingstown, 107 A.3d at (noting that the effects of that decision [to implement the platoon reorganization] are subject to the FFAA s bargaining requirements but that, because the union failed, inter alia, to timely demand interest arbitration, the union waived its right to arbitrate those effects); Lime Rock, 673 A.2d at ( the specific mechanism for resolving disputes under the FFAA is through [interest] arbitration provided that a timely demand is submitted, citing R.I. Gen. Laws ); see also Town of Burrillville, 921 A.2d at 120 (police union waived mid-contract bargaining and arbitration over management s unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment by failing to timely request bargaining). In North Kingstown, the Supreme Court stated: Moving forward, the town may continue to assert the decision to implement the three-platoon structure as a management right. The town is not required to bargain with the union regarding this decision. Additionally, the town may not be compelled to submit the decision itself to interest arbitration. Nonetheless, provided that the union timely complies with the FFAA s requirements and makes timely requests, the town must bargain regarding the effects of its decision to implement the three-platoon structure. Similarly, provided that the union complies with the FFAA s requirements and makes timely requests, the union may submit unresolved issues regarding the effects of the town s decision to interest arbitration. See (3); ; ; ; Id. at 318 (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Supreme Court, in plain language, has held that such effects are subject to interest arbitration only, as that is the specific mechanism for resolving bargaining disputes under the FFAA. See id.; see also Lime Rock, 673 A.2d at The Supreme Court reached the same result in Lime Rock. There, a fire district unilaterally made the decision to lay off all six full-time firefighters all union members and subsequently hired new call firefighters. Lime Rock, 673 A.2d at 52. The union timely requested collective bargaining, but stopped negotiating once the fire district had implemented its reorganization. See id. at 52. Following the failed negotiations, the union, rather than timely 22

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY [Cite as Portsmouth v. Fraternal Order of Police Scioto Lodge 33, 2006-Ohio-4387.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY City of Portsmouth, : Plaintiff-Appellant/ : Cross-Appellee,

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2017-31 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2016-061 PBA LOCAL 228, Respondent. SYNOPSIS

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2010-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF NEWARK, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2009-049 NEWARK SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket Nos. SN SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket Nos. SN SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2012-72 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of TOWNSHIP OF MAPLE SHADE, Petitioner, -and- PBA LOCAL 267, Docket Nos. SN-2011-052 SN-2011-061

More information

# (OAL Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

# (OAL Decision:   V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION #308-09 (OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu09142-08_1.html) HEATHER HUDSON, : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION TOWNSHIP OF

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2013-13 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF RAHWAY, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2012-004 FMBA LOCAL 33, Respondent. SYNOPSIS

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2015-8 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2014-033 FOP LODGE

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION American Federation of State, County and Municipal ) Employees, Council 31, AFL-CIO, for and on behalf ) of AFSCME Locals

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DETROIT HOUSING COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 2, 2016 v No. 323453 Michigan Employment Relations Commission NEIL SWEAT, LC No. 11-000799 Charging

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. County of Lehigh, : Appellant : : v. : : Lehigh County Deputy : No C.D Sheriffs' Association :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. County of Lehigh, : Appellant : : v. : : Lehigh County Deputy : No C.D Sheriffs' Association : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA County of Lehigh, : Appellant : : v. : : Lehigh County Deputy : No. 1054 C.D. 2011 Sheriffs' Association : O R D E R AND NOW, this 16 th day of July, 2012, it

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND BRIAN MONTEIRO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, ) EAST PROVIDENCE CANVASSING AUTHORITY, ) C.A. No. 09- MARYANN CALLAHAN,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANGELA STEFFKE, REBECCA METZ, and NANCY RHATIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 7, 2015 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 317616 Wayne Circuit Court TAYLOR FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AFT

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2006-85 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF ROSELLE PARK, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2006-033 P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 27, Respondent.

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2013-80 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF WALLINGTON, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2012-071 PBA LOCAL 321, Respondent. SYNOPSIS

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2017-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF WANAQUE, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2016-079 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 11, Respondent.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00132-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM

More information

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DADE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION LABOR ARBITRATION FORUM

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION LABOR ARBITRATION FORUM AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION LABOR ARBITRATION FORUM In the Matter of: ASSOCIATION, ) ) Grievance: Post Vacancy Position Association, ) ) AAA Case No and ) ) Gr No DISTRICT, ) ) Arbitrator Lee Hornberger

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2018-37 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2018-019

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANN ARBOR EDUCATION ASSOCIATION FOR PARAPROFESSIONALS, MEA/NEA, and SHEILA MCSPADDEN, UNPUBLISHED July 12, 2011 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 294115 Washtenaw Circuit

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF BRIDGEPORT -AND- DECISION NO. 4649 MARCH 19, 2013 BRIDGEPORT POLICE UNION, LOCAL 1159 COUNCIL 15,

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. COME NOW Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. COME NOW Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 2/16/2018 9:44:40 AM CHRISTAL BRADFORD Candi Lucero THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF SANDOVAL STATE OF NEW MEXICO INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL

More information

2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 2014 WL 2581034 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING. Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Britain. City of HARTFORD

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS OAKLAND UNIVERSITY CHAPTER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, UNPUBLISHED February 9, 2012 Charging Party-Appellee, v No. 300680 MERC OAKLAND UNIVERSITY,

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2016-37 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PASSAIC BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2015-068 PASSAIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2006-93 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF MIDDLESEX, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2006-058 UNITED SERVICE WORKERS, IUJAT,

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS HEARING DATE: May 3, 2016 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT JOHANNA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. PC-2015-3821 JEFFREY DANA, in his capacity as City Solicitor

More information

Mayers v. Volt Management (Cal. Ct. App.): FEHA/Arbitration.

Mayers v. Volt Management (Cal. Ct. App.): FEHA/Arbitration. March 14, 2012 Mayers v. Volt Management (Cal. Ct. App.): FEHA/Arbitration. Stephen Mayers filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Volt Management Corp., and its parent corporation, Volt Information

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2015-11 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of TOWNSHIP OF BRIDGEWATER, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2014-004 PBA LOCAL 174, Respondent.

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF CONNECTICUT DECISION NO. 4940 JUDICIAL BRANCH FEBRUARY 16, 2017 -AND- LOCAL 749 OF COUNCIL 4,

More information

Board of Trustees Compensation and Labor Committee Teleconference Meeting

Board of Trustees Compensation and Labor Committee Teleconference Meeting Board of Trustees Compensation and Labor Committee Teleconference Meeting September 9, 2013 1:30 p.m. President s Board Room Millican Hall, 3 rd floor 800-442-5794, passcode 463796 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION. -and- Case No. C03 D-090

STATE OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION. -and- Case No. C03 D-090 STATE OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION In the Matter of: EATON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and EATON COUNTY SHERIFF, Respondents -Public Employers, -and- Case No.

More information

49-04 (Link to OAL Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

49-04 (Link to OAL Decision:   V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 49-04 (Link to OAL Decision http//lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu01852-03_1.html) VICTORIA CARRELLE, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. v. C.A. No. 03- VERIFIED COMPLAINT. Jurisdiction And Venue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. v. C.A. No. 03- VERIFIED COMPLAINT. Jurisdiction And Venue UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND CHRISTINE MELENDEZ TOWN OF NORTH SMITHFIELD, by its Treasurer, RICHARD CONNORS, and LOCAL 3984, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION S COMPLAINT FOR

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION S COMPLAINT FOR Gregg McLean Adam, No. gregg@majlabor.com MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP Montgomery Street, Suite San Francisco, California Telephone:..00 Facsimile:.. Attorneys for San Francisco Police Officers Association

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CITY OF ANN ARBOR, Plaintiff-Appellee FOR PUBLICATION May 28, 2009 9:05 a.m. v No. 283814 Washtenaw Circuit Court AFSCME LOCAL 369, LC No. 07-000520-CL Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFSCME, District Council 33 and : AFSCME, Local 159, : Appellants : : v. : : City of Philadelphia : No. 652 C.D. 2013 : Argued: February 10, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS IONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Respondent-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 28, 2015 9:05 a.m. v No. 321728 MERC IONIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LC No. 00-000136 Charging Party-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF BRISTOL BOARD OF EDUCATION -AND- LOCAL 2267, COUNCIL 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO DECISION NO. 4741 JUNE 16, 2014

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2017-73 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF PLAINFIELD, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2016-216 PLAINFIELD FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

More information

AGREEMENT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES RECITALS. B. The District owns and operates Hospital in, Washington (the "Hospital");

AGREEMENT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES RECITALS. B. The District owns and operates Hospital in, Washington (the Hospital); AGREEMENT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES This Agreement for Physician Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of, by and between Public Hospital District No. of County, Washington (the "District"),

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAYNE COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2017 v No. 327727 MERC MICHIGAN AFSCME COUNCIL 25, AFL-CIO, LC No. 10-000060 Charging Party-Appellant. WAYNE

More information

Fax: (888)

Fax: (888) 833 S. Burnside Ave. Los Angeles, California 90036 (213) 342-8560 California practice dedicated to providing affordable legal assistance to teachers Second District Court of Appeal Law Offices of Ronald

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PONTIAC SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2015 v No. 322184 MERC PONTIAC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LC No. 12-000646 Charging Party-Appellant.

More information

Following is the full text and ballot language of the two (2) proposed Charter amendments: FIRST PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

Following is the full text and ballot language of the two (2) proposed Charter amendments: FIRST PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADAMS COUNTY COORDINATED MAIL BALLOT ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER

More information

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:14-cv-00967 Document 1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HOME CARE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ) 412 First St, SE ) Washington, D.C. 20003

More information

Case 1:16-cv WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615

Case 1:16-cv WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615 Case 1:16-cv-00176-WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 135, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. SYSCO INDIANAPOLIS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF TOWN OF WESTBROOK -AND- UPSEU/COPS DECISION NO. 4687 NOVEMBER 15, 2013 Case No. MPP-29,926 A P P E A R

More information

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION OPINION OF ARBITRATOR. In the instant cause, the Grievants have alleged that the Employer failed to properly

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION OPINION OF ARBITRATOR. In the instant cause, the Grievants have alleged that the Employer failed to properly Cook #1 AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN UNION -and- EMPLOYER OPINION OF ARBITRATOR By: JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. Arbitrator In the instant cause, the Grievants have

More information

ARBITRATOR S DECISION AND AWARD. Employer, Grievant: Bargaining Unit

ARBITRATOR S DECISION AND AWARD. Employer, Grievant: Bargaining Unit ARBITRATOR S DECISION AND AWARD In the Matter of Arbitration Between: CITY OF MATTOON, and Employer, Grievant: Bargaining Unit MATTOON FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 691, Union. DATE OF GRIEVANCE: July

More information

Case 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

Case 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION Case 2:11-cv-02577 Document 1 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Lucki v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-5404.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Anthony Lucki, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 11AP-43 v. : (C.C. No. 2010-06982)

More information

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1752834 Filed: 09/27/2018 Page 1 of 10 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION

More information

Case 0:18-cv UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2018 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No.

Case 0:18-cv UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2018 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. Case 0:18-cv-60530-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2018 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, and SHERIDAN HEALTHCORP,

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION -and- LOCAL 3713, COUNCIL 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO DECISION NO. 3835 AUGUST

More information

Case 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331

Case 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 12/16/13 Certified for publication 1/3/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-01475 Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street, N.W., Washington,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1286 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOSEPH DINICOLA,

More information

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 25, 2018 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary EXECUTIVE ORDER DEVELOPING EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND COST-REDUCING APPROACHES TO FEDERAL SECTOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING By

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2007-60 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2007-041 P.B.A.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA International Association of Firefighters : Local 1400, Chester City Firefighters, : Appellant : : No. 1404 C.D. 2009 v. : Argued: February 8, 2010 : The City

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. (FILED: September 26, 2014)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. (FILED: September 26, 2014) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT (FILED: September 26, 2014) LOCAL 2334 OF THE INTERNATIONAL : ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, : AFL-CIO : : V. : C.A. NO. PC

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Northumberland County Commissioners : and Kathleen M. Strausser : : v. : No. 1309 C.D. 2012 : Argued: March 13, 2013 American Federation of State, : County and

More information

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 158. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. EMPLOYER: Ohio Student Loan Commission. DATE OF ARBITRATION: August 18, 1988

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 158. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. EMPLOYER: Ohio Student Loan Commission. DATE OF ARBITRATION: August 18, 1988 ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 158 UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO EMPLOYER: Ohio Student Loan Commission DATE OF ARBITRATION: August 18, 1988 DATE OF DECISION: August 18, 1988 GRIEVANT: Dan Myers OCB

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Alan M. Malott, District Judge

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Alan M. Malott, District Judge This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 1:33-av-00001 1:17-cv-00665-RMB-JS Document Document 8092 Filed 1 01/31/17 Filed 01/31/17 Page Page 1 of 51 PageID: of 5 PageID: 264333 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY INTERNATIONAL

More information

TRADE UNION. The Trade Union Act. Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014)

TRADE UNION. The Trade Union Act. Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014) 1 TRADE UNION c. T-17 The Trade Union Act Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014) Formerly Chapter T-17 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978

More information

CARLISLE HOME RULE CHARTER. ARTICLE I General Provisions

CARLISLE HOME RULE CHARTER. ARTICLE I General Provisions CARLISLE HOME RULE CHARTER We, the people of Carlisle, under the authority granted the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to adopt home rule charters and exercise the rights of local self-government,

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. Introduction

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. Introduction STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT SHAUNNE N. THOMAS, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : C.A. No. : JUSTICE ROBERT G. FLANDERS, : JR., in his Official Capacity as : Appointed Receiver to the City

More information

P.E.R.C. NO STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

P.E.R.C. NO STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2012-47 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2011-082 UAW, LOCAL 2327, Respondent. SYNOPSIS

More information

Case 1:18-cv MSK-KMT Document 1 Filed 09/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:18-cv MSK-KMT Document 1 Filed 09/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:18-cv-02386-MSK-KMT Document 1 Filed 09/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO SCOTT BEAN and JOSHUA FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREN MACKALL, v. Plaintiff, HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-who ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Re:

More information

# (OAL Decision:

# (OAL Decision: #268-09 (OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu05801-08_1.html) BELINDA MENDEZ-AZZOLLINI, : PETITIONER, : V. : BOARD OF EDUCATION OF : THE TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON, ESSEX COUNTY,

More information

NORTHEAST FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 630, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND CITY OF PALM COAST

NORTHEAST FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 630, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND CITY OF PALM COAST NORTHEAST FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 630, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND CITY OF PALM COAST COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FY 2015-16 to 2017-18 status as of 5/5/16 1

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:11-cv-06209-AET -LHG Document 11 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 274 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY v. Petitioner,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REL: 05/27/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2018-37, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, Docket No. SN-2018-019 PBA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, Respondent. The Public Employment Relations Commission grants in part, and

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION -AND- LOCAL 3713, COUNCIL 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO DECISION NO. 4153 APRIL 11,

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS In the Matter of TOWN OF NEWINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION - and - LOCAL 1303 OF COUNCIL #4, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,

More information

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (EXCERPT) Act 336 of 1947

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (EXCERPT) Act 336 of 1947 423.201 Definitions; rights of public employees. Sec. 1. (1) As used in this act: (a) Bargaining representative means a labor organization recognized by an employer or certified by the commission as the

More information

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES Frankland #6 FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Union -and- Employer --------------------------------------------------------- Gr: Vacation Schedule/

More information

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MICHIGAN ARBITRATION, CASE EVALUATION, AND MEDIATION LAW

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MICHIGAN ARBITRATION, CASE EVALUATION, AND MEDIATION LAW RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MICHIGAN ARBITRATION, CASE EVALUATION, AND MEDIATION LAW Lee Hornberger Arbitration and Mediation Office of Lee Hornberger I. INTRODUCTION This article reviews recent Michigan Supreme

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2018-4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF MILLVILLE, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2016-251 NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION,

More information

ARTICLE 10 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

ARTICLE 10 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES ARTICLE 10 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 10.1 The purpose of this Article is to provide a prompt and effective procedure for the resolution of disputes. The procedures hereinafter set forth shall, except for matters

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00641-CV North East Independent School District, Appellant v. John Kelley, Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, and Texas Education Agency,

More information

Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board

Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board EXHIBIT B OPEN MINUTES BOARD MEETING TIME: 9:00 A.M. DATE: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 PLACE: 1511 Pontiac Ave., Building #73, 3 rd Floor, Cranston, RI 02920 BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2018-8 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PLEASANTVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2017-039 PLEASANTVILLE EDUCATION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION. Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION. Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION Council 31 of the American Federation of State, ) County and Municpal Employees, AFL-CIO, ) ) Plaintiff, )

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BATES ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION September 14, 2010 9:15 a.m. v No. 288826 Wayne Circuit Court 132 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,

More information

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between WINNEBAGO COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 1903, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and WINNEBAGO COUNTY Case 311 No. 57139 Appearances:

More information

Case: 1:98-cv Document #: 715 Filed: 02/13/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6638

Case: 1:98-cv Document #: 715 Filed: 02/13/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6638 Case: 1:98-cv-05596 Document #: 715 Filed: 02/13/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6638 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ARTHUR L. LEWIS, JR., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs,

More information

Federal Labor Relations Authority Case Law Update. Denver Regional Office

Federal Labor Relations Authority Case Law Update. Denver Regional Office Federal Labor Relations Authority Case Law Update Denver Regional Office Recent Authority Decisions Bars to ULP Charges and Grievances Time Limitations to File ULP Charges Conditions of Employment Past

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------

More information

Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Adam K. Doerr, Esq. and Stephen M. Cox, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Adam K. Doerr, Esq. and Stephen M. Cox, Esq., for Plaintiff. Talisman Software, Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Atkins, 2016 NCBC 1. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF DURHAM 14 CVS 5834 TALISMAN SOFTWARE, SYSTEMS &

More information

AGREEMENT. between THE METUCHEN BOARD OF EDUCATION. and THE METUCHEN PRINCIPALS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION JULY 1, through

AGREEMENT. between THE METUCHEN BOARD OF EDUCATION. and THE METUCHEN PRINCIPALS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION JULY 1, through AGREEMENT between THE METUCHEN BOARD OF EDUCATION and THE METUCHEN PRINCIPALS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION JULY 1, 2007 through JUNE 30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Article Page I Recognition... 2 II Board Rights...

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ABBVIE INC., Case No. -cv-0-emc United States District Court 0 v. Plaintiff, NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Defendants. REDACTED/PUBLIC

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE SHAWN KOSKYN, GREG ANDREWS, FRED ARMSTRONG, and MARIA SANTIAGO-POWELL, individuals, STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE -v- Plaintiffs, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 214, an unincorporated

More information

ARTICLE XVIII SENIORITY AND REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL

ARTICLE XVIII SENIORITY AND REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL AMERICAN ARBITRATION UNION In the Matter of Arbitration between CASE: McCORMICK #1 UNON - and SOMEPLACE BOARD OF EDUCATION A hearing in the above captioned matter was held before Arbitrator Robert A. McCormick

More information