On July 29, 2019, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections announced changes to the DOC’s Absenteeism Management Program (AMP), effective September 1, 2019. The modifications included consolidating discipline tracks into two categories: one for absenteeism, tardiness, and involuntary mandatory overtime (IMOT), and another for all other disciplinary matters. The new policy also introduced progressive sanctions for absenteeism, stricter requirements for sick notes, and closer scrutiny of pattern sick time use. Notably, the DOC’s announcement added that “eight-hour restriction notes would no longer be accepted and any individuals seeking such a restriction would ‘have to apply for and be approved for FMLA.’ Finally, the director stated that ‘pattern sick time use will be more closely scrutinized, and abuse will be referred for discipline, even if prior to the trimester review.’”
The Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers (RIBCO), representing DOC employees, argued that these changes constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining under the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Act. RIBCO demanded negotiations, but the DOC refused, asserting that the changes fell within the director’s statutory authority and the management rights clause of the CBA. RIBCO fled an unfair labor practice charge with the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board, which ruled in favor of RIBCO, finding the DOC violated the Act by unilaterally implementing the changes without negotiation. The DOC appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the Board’s decision, prompting RIBCO’s appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and affected by legal error.
The Court noted inconsistencies in the Board’s reasoning, particularly its reliance on the AMP memorandum’s “current” versus “new system” framework to conclude that changes were made, while simultaneously finding that some policies were merely reemphasized rather than altered. The Court also rejected the Board’s determination that the DOC director lacked statutory authority to implement the changes. The director testified that absenteeism abuse caused staffing shortages, which negatively impacted inmate climate and institutional safety. For example, posts like education or visitation had to be closed when staff shortages occurred. The Court found this testimony uncontradicted and directly relevant to the director’s statutory duties under R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-56-10, which grants the director broad authority to maintain security, manage operations, and discipline employees.
The Court emphasized that the AMP changes did not affect the amount of sick time or the trimester review framework but focused on disciplining abuse and tightening approval for sick notes. Citing Vose v. Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, the Court reiterated that the DOC cannot bargain away the director’s statutory powers. The Court rejected RIBCO’s argument that a direct conflict between the Act and § 42-56-10 was required, clarifying that such a conflict is necessary only when the CBA is at issue, not when statutory authority is exercised independently. The Court concluded that the changes were a valid exercise of the director’s authority under § 42-56-10(2), (5), and (7), which mandate maintaining security, managing operations, and disciplining employees.
State v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board, 333 A.3d 83 (R.I. 2025).