Opinion ID: 2109344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Union Issue

Text: We next turn our attention to the issue of Iafrate's status as a member of the collective bargaining unit. Macera has alleged that the hearing justice erred when she refused to rule on his claim that Iafrate held a supervisory position within the town and was thus not entitled to union membership. We agree and are mindful that no factual record exists respecting this issue. Having found error in the refusal of the trial justice to rule on an essential claim for relief, this Court would normally remand the matter for additional fact-finding. However, in light of the extensive record in this case, particularly the evidence introduced by Iafrate in support of his counterclaim for mandamus, we are satisfied that additional fact-finding is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. See R-N-R Associates v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence, 100 R.I. 7, 13, 210 A.2d 653, 656 (1965) (after careful scrutiny of the record, remand was unnecessary in circumstances where additional fact-finding would serve no useful purpose). Significantly, Iafrate introduced a series of exhibits clearly establishing not only his role as highway director but also demonstrating that his responsibilities were supervisory and managerial. The record discloses that Iafrate exercised the powers associated with his managerial status on numerous occasions that ultimately led to the absurd situation in which a laborer and fellow union member filed a grievance against his supervisor, brother Iafrate, arising from the imposition of progressive discipline by Iafrate, including written disciplinary warnings, a suspension, termination and reinstatement that was ultimately negotiated by the union. Iafrate's membership in this same collective bargaining unit is violative of the public policy of this state that the inclusion of managers and supervisors in the collective bargaining process creates a conflict of interest because, as this Court has recognized,these individuals are (or should be) aligned with the [public body] as the employer in disputes and grievances of the `rank and file employee.' State v. Local No. 2883, AFSCME, 463 A.2d 186, 191 (R.I.1983). Moreover, managerial and supervisory employees are specifically excluded in the definition of municipal employees found in G.L.1956 chapter 9.4 of title 28, the Municipal Arbitration Act. Section 28-9.4-2(b) of that act defines a municipal employee as any employee of a municipal employer, whether or not in the classified service of the municipal employer, except:    (4) Confidential and supervisory employees    . (Emphasis added.) This Court has consistently held that managerial and supervisory employees are excluded from the collective bargaining process, AFSCME, 463 A.2d at 191, as are employees with access to confidential information. Barrington School Committee v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board, 608 A.2d 1126, 1136 (R.I.1992). Further, we have adopted the federal definition of supervisor as any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire    suspend    discharge    or discipline other employees, or responsibility to direct them,    if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. AFSCME, 463 A.2d at 189-90, n.4 (quoting 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(11)). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the town's highway director is not a rank and file employee eligible for inclusion in the collective bargaining unit. By virtue of the record introduced by Iafrate, the local ordinances relied upon in support of his counterclaim [11] and the managerial and supervisory duties inherent in this position, the highway director does not qualify for union membership. Although both state law and the charter accord municipal employees the right to organize and join lawful organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining, neither department headsnor heads of agencies are eligible employees. We agree with Macera's assertion that, as highway director, Iafrate is responsible for the direction and supervision of numerous employees and has exercised these responsibilities on numerous occasions, including the termination of insubordinate workers. By his own admission, Iafrate supervised twenty to twenty-five employees, made job assignments, suspended and fired employees and answered to no one but the mayor. Also, he possessed all the powers delineated in Article XVI, Section 16-11 of the charter. [12] Iafrate may not have it both ways; his argument that he served as the director of highways also served to disqualify him from inclusion in the bargaining unit. Therefore, the provision of the CBA which places the position of highway director in the union shall be stricken from the contract.