The State Labor Relations Board has ordered the city to rehire the crossing guards and pay them the salaries and benefits they would have been paid under the terms of their last contract.

The Labor Board’s decision, rendered last Friday, also forces the city to take part in “dispute resolution mechanisms” including interest arbitration, and requires the city to provide the Labor Board with a list of all the employees affected by the decision.

The decision’s implication could cost city taxpayers millions over the long run.

“This decision was not unexpected,” said City Personnel Director Oscar Shelton.

The decision passed by a 3-3 vote. It is unclear how a tie represents a win, and Robyn Golden, the board’s administrator, was not available for comment yesterday. Shelton said municipalities in general have a poor track record before the State Labor Relations Board.

Donald Iannazzi, the union’s representative, could not be reached for comment.

The city has a 30-day window, which began last Friday, to appeal the decision to the State Superior Court. Calls to City Solicitor Peter Ruggiero were unsuccessful, but the city is widely expected to appeal the decision.

After the mayor came to an agreement with the city’s crossing guards that would have reduced their ranks through attrition in 2007 but maintained lifetime health care and pension benefits, the City Council, by a 9-0 vote, rejected the agreement. Members of the city council argued that the deal was unaffordable for taxpayers in an increasingly tight economic environment.

The council asked the mayor to privatize the crossing guards—as is the case in neighboring Cranston—but he wasn’t keen on the idea.

Instead, Mayor Scott Avedisian decided to fire the existing crossing guards, and re-hire them without health care or pension benefits.

The Laborer’s Local 1033, which represents the crossing guards, filed a complaint with the State Labor Relations Board, saying the city committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally changing the terms of the crossing guards’ pay and benefits, and failed to negotiate in good faith.

The city argued that it had reached an impasse in negotiations, saying it would be impossible to reach an agreement that would satisfy both the city council and the union with a deal.

“The board, therefore, finds that the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain in good faith and by unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment, and by failing to participate in statutory resolution procedures,” the decision states.

As early as February of 2007, the city council passed a resolution stating it “is exercising its option not to renew the collective bargaining agreement in order to explore the possibility of privatizing the crossing guards and the potential cost savings associated therewith…”

The administration ignored the resolution and began negotiating with the union. The two sides came to an agreement that July.

In November, the city council rejected it.

The decision criticizes the fact that the negotiating that took place didn’t involve the council, which had final say over the issue.

“The board is very concerned about the apparent disconnect between the city’s administration and the city’s political leaders relative to the negotiation of this contract,” the decision states.

Further, the decision called the situation in Warwick, where the mayor negotiates a contract and the council ratifies it, a “disjointed and ill-informed” process.

“Forcing the union to negotiate with representatives that have no real authority to negotiate is not indicative of good faith.”

City Councilman Joseph Solomon (D-Ward 4), who was then council president and is also an attorney, said the decision lacks knowledge of the Warwick City Charter.

“Under the charter, the mayor is empowered to negotiate contracts. To include a member of the city council on the negotiating team would be to break the Warwick City Charter,” said Solomon yesterday.

Solomon is urging the administration to appeal the decision.

The decision also faults the city for simply declaring an impasse instead of exhausting the proper remedies—such as arbitration—to resolve the dispute.

To that end, all is not lost. When neighboring Cranston chose to fire its crossing guards in 2005, the same union filed a complaint to the Labor Relations Board and won. That decision, however, was appealed to Superior Court, where the city was victorious. The State Supreme Court decided not to take up the issue, and Cranston won the day.

William Felkner, the president of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, has criticized the Labor Relations Board for continually favoring the unions over management. Felkner said that over the last three years, management has a 7-0 record on all major decisions.

“There shouldn’t be a Labor Board in the state of Rhode Island. We should rely on the free market to resolve labor disputes,” said Felkner.