Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Arbitration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rhode Island committee bundles three arbitration bills; testimony split over binding arbitration
Summary
The House Labor Committee bundled three arbitration proposals — for firefighters, municipal police and municipal employees — and held them for further study after testimony from unions and opponents highlighted disagreements about binding arbitration and protections for municipalities.
The House Labor Committee on April 2 held for further study three related arbitration bills that would change how contract disputes are handled for firefighters, municipal police and municipal employees. The committee’s procedural motion to hold the bills passed on a voice/roll call vote before testimony began.
The three measures were presented together by committee leaders. Committee Chair Corvaci said the bills include a provision that would allow the terms of an existing contract to remain in force until a successor agreement or an interest arbitration award is reached. He described identical language in the firefighters and police proposals and said the municipal-employee bill would “establish new factors for the arbiters to consider,” including comparisons of wages and conditions of similarly skilled jobs.
Unions representing police and firefighters urged the committee to approve the measures or maintain binding arbitration mechanisms. John Rossi, speaking for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers/NAGE, said the municipal police bill “allows for the contract the terms and conditions of a police contract to be extended until a resolution is met either through a successor agreement or through binding arbitration.” Paul Valletta, supporting the firefighters provision, told the committee that firefighters typically notify municipalities in February when they want to negotiate and that arbitration follows a defined timeline; “once the arbitrator rules, it’s final and binding,” he said.
Opponents cautioned that adopting binding arbitration without safeguards could create problems for municipalities and encourage job actions. Tim Duffy, identified in testimony as an opponent, said Connecticut’s approach, which includes a governor-appointed neutral pool and appeal rights, demonstrated safeguards Rhode Island lacks. Duffy said he would more likely support “total package” binding arbitration if the process allowed appeals and a neutral appointment mechanism. He also raised concerns that a union dissatisfied with an arbitration award could still engage in job actions while management would be legally bound to abide by the arbitrator’s decision.
Other union witnesses defended binding arbitration as a tool to reach finality and prevent unilateral actions by employers. Jim Cinerini of AFSCME Council 94 said binding arbitration “provides a final resolution” and noted that unions do not always prevail but that finality can be necessary.
No substantive votes on the bills were taken; the committee approved a procedural motion to hold the listed bills for further study so the committee can collect additional written and oral testimony.
Committee leaders said they would continue to work with stakeholders on details such as the selection of arbitrators, the scope of issues that may be subject to binding arbitration and whether appeals should be permitted.
