West Warwick Housing Authority v. RI Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 277 A.3d 707

Background

West Warwick Housing Authority (HA) and RI Council 94, AFSCME (union) executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective July 24, 2012–Dec. 31, 2014, with an automatic one-year renewal clause (Section 40.1) and a HUD ratification proviso requiring HUD approval for the agreement to be effective.
In April 2015 HA suspended and later terminated employee Deborah Tellier; the union filed a grievance and requested arbitration on June 30, 2015.
At arbitration (begun Mar. 1, 2016) HA disputed substantive arbitrability, arguing the CBA was unenforceable because HUD never ratified it and/or it had expired before the termination; HA nonetheless participated in the arbitration and submitted the CBA as a joint exhibit.
The arbitrator found HA was responsible for seeking HUD approval, that HA had acted as if the CBA was valid through at least May 26, 2015, that the CBA had automatically renewed to Dec. 31, 2015, and found for the grievant on the merits.
HA moved in Superior Court to vacate the award under G.L. 1956 § 28-9-18; the trial justice denied the motion, confirmed the award, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the union; HA appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of CBA because HUD never ratified	HA: CBA invalid without HUD ratification, so no agreement to arbitrate	Union: No statutory duty shown that HUD had to ratify; HA acted as if CBA was valid	Court accepted arbitrator's findings that HA bore ratification responsibility, acted consistently with a valid CBA, and arbitration was substantively arbitrable
Whether CBA expired before grievance (renewal/120‑day notice)	HA: CBA expired; renewal prevented by union's 120‑day notice and/or §28-9.4-5 term limits	Union: Parties continued to perform under CBA; automatic renewal applied	Court and arbitrator found automatic renewal to Dec. 31, 2015; HA waived late-raised statutory-term argument by not presenting it to arbitrator
Effect of HA participating in arbitration on ability to challenge arbitrability	HA: Burden rests on union to prove an enforceable contract	Union: Under §28-9-13 the objecting party who participated must timely raise and substantiate defects; participation limits available objections	Court held HA’s participation without timely stay/adjudication limited its post-arbitration challenges under §28-9-13(1); HA bore burden to present evidentiary facts and failed to do so
Attorneys’ fees for defending the appeal	HA: Opposes fee award	Union: Seeks appellate fees under §28-9-18(c)	Court declined to rule on appellate fee request because union failed to meaningfully brief applicability; did not award appellate fees at this time

Key Cases Cited

AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (federal principle that judicial review of arbitration awards is narrowly limited)
United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Company, 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (presumption of arbitrability and limited judicial inquiry)
Providence Teachers Union v. Providence School Committee, 440 A.2d 124 (R.I. 1982) (§28-9-18 requires vacatur when no valid contract and timely objection)
Providence Teachers Union v. Providence School Board, 689 A.2d 388 (R.I. 1997) (participation in arbitration with notice of defects can waive objection under §28-9-13)
State, Department of Corrections v. Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, 64 A.3d 734 (R.I. 2013) (arbitration awards enjoy a presumption of validity)
Radiation Oncology Associates, Inc. v. Roger Williams Hospital, 899 A.2d 511 (R.I. 2006) (arbitration‑statute framework governs review even where contract‑construction principles apply)
Feibelman v. F.O., Inc., 604 A.2d 344 (R.I. 1992) (burden on party asserting arbitrators exceeded authority)
Gannon v. City of Pawtucket, 200 A.3d 1074 (R.I. 2019) (discussing awarding attorneys’ fees under §28-9-18(c))

Affirmed: Superior Court judgment confirming the arbitration award; record remanded to Superior Court.