State Labor Relations Board schedules second hearing for April 2.

By VINAYA SAKSENA

CRANSTON — The State Labor Relations Board heard opening remarks from both parties involved in a dispute over the pay and benefits awarded to East Providence’s public school teachers on Thursday, and has already scheduled a follow-up hearing, according to a board representative.

Thursday’s hearing before the board was the first in a dispute between the East Providence Education Association — the union representing the city’s public school teachers — and the East Providence School Committee. According to Robyn Golden, sdministrator for the State Labor Relations Board, the entire hearing was devoted to hearing the opening statements of both parties.
The subject of the hearing is a complaint filed by the Labor Relations Board in the wake of an unfair labor practices charge brought against the School Committee by the union. The union has alleged that the committee made a unilateral decision to cut teacher pay and benefits for the coming school year in order to balance the school budget, after the parties had failed to reach an agreement before the teachers’ contract expired at the end of October, 2008. Golden said the Labor Relations Board had decided to issue its complaint against the School Committee after reviewing statements submitted by both parties on the matter.
In recent days, however, various parties opposed to the union’s complaint have alleged that the Labor Relations Board has a history of pro-union bias. And while Superior Court Judge Mark Pfeiffer denied a request by the union in January for a court hearing on the matter, saying it should be heard by the Labor Relations Board first, the Taxpayers Association echoed a call by School Committee Chairman Anthony Carcieri last week to have the matter heard in court without a hearing by the board beforehand. Carcieri had argued that the School Committee had followed labor laws to the letter before making its decision to cut teacher pay and benefits, and that a law prohibiting deficit spending by the School Department trumped labor law anyway.
“The Labor Board has looked the other way when the School Committee filed legitimate complaints about the unfair labor practices of the teachers’ union,” Taxpayers Association spokesman Bill Murphy added in a written statement.  “The law is very clear.  The union refused to name an arbitrator within 7 days of the School Committee’s request on September 15th as the law requires, but the Labor Board had no problem with this.  This is an example of outright bias.” 
The union, meanwhile, had alleged that the School Committee had failed to bargain in good faith. Golden said she could comment only on matters of procedure, and not on allegations of bias on the Labor Relations Board.
“We are a neutral board,” Golden said. “It’s a board made up of three management (representatives) and three labor,” plus one member representing the public at large.
Golden also noted that one of the positions representing management also represents local government, and that the board is currently short one labor representative.
According to Golden, the board’s next hearing on the East Providence dispute will take place on April 2. She said that hearing would see the board begin to hear testimony supporting the cases made by both parties, beginning with the union. Golden said it was customary for witnesses brought forth by the party that made the initial allegation leading to the complaint be heard first, as the burden of proof was on the party whose allegations had lead to the complaint being heard, which in this case is the teachers’ union.