Skip to main content

Town of Cumberland v. Cumberland Town Employees Union

RIMay 14, 2018No. 17-186

Case Details

Judge(s)
Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, Indeglia
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The instant appeal challenged a Providence County Superior Court hearing justice's decision granting a motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the defendants, the Cumberland Town Employees Union and Norman Tremblay (Tremblay) (collectively, the union), brought by the Town of Cumberland (the town), and denying the union's cross-petition to confirm the same. The union argued that the Superior Court justice improperly held that the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) prevented the parties from bringing the claim to arbitration. Further, the union asserted that Tremblay and the town's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) properly granted Tremblay a longer leave of absence than the WCA. The town countered that the dispute was not arbitrable because the WCA governed Tremblay's reinstatement, and the WCA gave exclusive jurisdiction over Tremblay's reinstatement to the Workers' Compensation Court. The Supreme Court held that the grievance was arbitrable because Tremblay brought his action in reliance on the CBA, and not on the WCA. Further, the Court concluded that the CBA between the union and the town could grant greater protection than the WCA. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award.

What This Ruling Means

**Town of Cumberland v. Cumberland Town Employees Union** This case involved a dispute between the Town of Cumberland and its employees' union over a worker named Norman Tremblay. An arbitrator had previously ruled in favor of Tremblay and the union, but the town challenged this decision in court. The town argued that Rhode Island's Workers' Compensation Act prevented the parties from resolving their dispute through arbitration instead of the workers' compensation system. The Superior Court sided with the town and threw out the arbitration award that had favored the union and Tremblay. However, the union appealed this decision to a higher court. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further review, meaning the original decision was not final and the matter remains unresolved. **Why this matters for workers:** This case highlights an important tension in employment disputes. When workers are injured or have workplace issues, they may have options to resolve disputes through either arbitration (often faster and less formal) or through official state systems like workers' compensation. The outcome of this case could affect which path workers and unions can choose when resolving workplace disputes, potentially impacting how quickly and effectively workers can get relief.

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

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.