The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has ruled that coaches in that state are not entitled to the same grievance procedures, under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), as other education professionals, such as “nurses, guidance counselors, and librarians.”
In so ruling, the justices denied the plaintiffs’ bid for a declaratory judgment, which would have spelled out their entitlement “to binding arbitration of adverse actions taken against them.”
The plaintiffs in the case were Craig Sacco and Charles Pearson, both of whom were coaches and teachers at Cranston West High School. Sacco was head coach of the school’s varsity boy’s hockey team for nine years. Pearson was head coach of the varsity girls’ soccer team for seven years. In accordance with policy, Pearson and Sacco were evaluated at the conclusion of the 2007-2008 season. Each received an unfavorable evaluation. As a result, Pearson was placed on probation for one year. Sacco was removed from his coaching position based on his unsatisfactory evaluation.
Both men disputed the substance of the charges levied against them in the evaluations and sought to file grievances under Article VI of the CBA, which details grievance procedures.
School officials refused to submit to arbitration, arguing that the coaches were not employed pursuant to the CBA, but instead were working under separate, one-year coaching contracts.
The coaches sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to binding arbitration, as guaranteed by the CBA.
On September 30, 2010, a trial court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs were not entitled to avail themselves of the CBA’s grievance procedures. The plaintiffs appealed.
As mentioned above, the appeals noted that “nurses, guidance counselors, and librarians are among those employees classified in the CBA as teachers. Coaches are not. We deem the omission determinative. It is our opinion that if the school district or the union intended for coaches to enjoy the rights of teachers in their professional capacities, it would have included the term in the definitional section.”
Craig Sacco v. Cranston School Department. Charles Pearson v. Cranston School Department; S. Ct. Rhode Island; No. 2011-21-Appeal. No. 2011-22-Appeal, 53 A.3d 147; 2012 R.I. LEXIS 129; 10/17/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Kevin M. Daley, Esq. (for defendants) Andrew Henneous, Esq.
