Skip to main content

Rhode Island Council on Postsecondary Education and University of Rhode Island v. American Association of University Professors, Part-Time Faculty United, a/k/a URI/AAUP, PTFU

RIJanuary 26, 2018No. 2016-53-Appeal. (PM 14-5703)
Mixed ResultUniversity of Rhode Island$6,500 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal to Rhode Island Supreme Court from Superior Court judgment confirming arbitration award

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the arbitration award of $6,500 in salary damages to the union member but vacated the arbitrator's cease-and-desist order, finding the dispute arbitrable and the CBA violation substantiated but the injunctive relief exceeded the arbitrator's authority.

Excerpt

Kenneth Jolicoeur, a part-time faculty member at the University of Rhode Island (URI) and a member of the American Association of University Professors, Part-Time Faculty United union (the union), was assigned two courses and a "Special Programs Contract" for the fall 2013 semester. URI then informed Jolicoeur that he could not perform all three assignments. Jolicoeur opted to teach the two classes and filed a grievance with URI protesting the limitation on assignments, but a resolution could not be reached through the grievance process. The union then filed a demand for arbitration on Jolicoeur's behalf. The arbitrator deemed the dispute arbitrable, found that URI's limitation on Jolicoeur's assignments violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and ordered URI to pay Jolicoeur $6,500 in salary for the rescinded "Special Programs Contract" and to cease and desist from unilaterally imposing a two-course limit. URI moved in the Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award and to stay the implementation of the award, to which the union objected and moved to confirm the award. The hearing justice denied URI's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's motion to confirm the award. On appeal to the Supreme Court, URI challenged the hearing justice's decision on three grounds: (1) the dispute was not substantively arbitrable (2) URI's imposition of a limitation did not violate the CBA and (3) the arbitrator exceeded his authority by issuing a cease-and-desist order. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the dispute was arbitrable because its resolution required interpretation of the CBA (2) the arbitrator's conclusion that URI violated the CBA was based on a passably plausible interpretation of the CBA and (3) the arbitrator exceeded his authority by imposing the cease-and-desist order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the cease-and-desist order and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in all other respects. Justice Indeglia

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** Kenneth Jolicoeur was a part-time professor at the University of Rhode Island who was initially assigned to teach two courses plus handle a "Special Programs Contract" for fall 2013. However, the university then told him he couldn't do all three assignments and would have to choose. Jolicoeur decided to teach the two classes but lost income from the special program work. His union filed a complaint, arguing the university violated their contract by limiting his work assignments. **The Court's Decision** The Rhode Island Supreme Court sided with the professor on the main issue, upholding an arbitrator's award of $6,500 in lost wages. The court agreed that the university had violated the union contract when it restricted Jolicoeur's assignments. However, the court rejected the arbitrator's order that would have prevented the university from making similar decisions in the future, ruling that this went beyond the arbitrator's authority. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that union contracts can provide real protection when employers try to reduce work assignments without proper justification. Part-time workers, who often face unpredictable schedules and income, can successfully challenge unfair limitations through their union's grievance process and potentially recover lost wages.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Jane Doe v. Brown University
RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.