Report Inappropriate Comments

ThatGuyinRI

Again, I am not a teacher…

In the 1990s when the Warwick teachers went on strike, the teachers were forced to return to work under the expired contract as the terms and conditions of that contract are valid until a new contract is reached. See below* I am also not an attorney but I am not aware that there is a subsequent case that supersedes this ruling and in speaking with a labor law attorney, it is highly unlikely that the superior court will rule against the unanimous labor board ruling this year that states that the expired contract is still valid.

EP is not comparable to Warwick. In EP there was as significant budget shortfall and state law indicates that school departments cannot run in a deficit. That is not our problem in RI…we do not have a budget shortfall therefore the original labor board ruling would apply. I do not have time to find the sources for you on this one, since you reference this situation, perhaps you can pull up the ruling. If it were true that the labor board had no bearing on the current contract negotiation then I find it hard to believe that they would have even heard the case that the school committee is currently appealing, but then again, I am not an attorney so I am not 100%

* From the original case in 1992: “Thereafter, the committee filed a motion for rehearing that was denied by the Superior Court justice on September 16, 1992. Following this denial, the committee appealed to this court and sought relief from the order of the Superior Court entered September 15, 1992, which required the members of the union to return to work pursuant to the terms and conditions of the expired contract. This order required the committee to abide by the terms and conditions of the expired contract until a subsequent collective bargaining agreement should be reached between the parties." (http://law.justia.com/cases/rhode-island/supreme-court/1992/613-a-2d-1273.html).