EAST PROVIDENCE — The bitter yearlong fight between the city’s School Committee and its teacher union is coming to a head in Superior Court — and officials all over the state are watching.

The issues, says a union lawyer, “cut to the very heart of collective bargaining in this state.”

Mayor Joseph S. Larisa Jr., who is a lawyer and backs the School Committee, says, “I agree that the issue presented is critical, but far less in the area of labor relations, and far more in the area of property taxpayer rights…”

A majority of School Committee members believe an “iron-clad” state law authorizes district officials to take whatever actions are necessary to steer clear of a spending deficit. They contend the legal requirement — which appears in the state’s education laws at least five times — trumps all contrary obligations described in other state regulations.

When the committee unilaterally reduced teacher salaries and benefits in January to keep its budget in balance, it was made to comply with that “clear and unambiguous” rule, according to a brief filed by committee lawyer Daniel K. Kinder in Superior Court.

Both sides finished filing briefs this month and Judge Michael A. Silverstein is expected to rule in the case sometime in December.

The old contract between the School Committee and the East Providence Education Association expired on Oct. 31, 2008, and despite sometimes contentious bargaining, no new pact had been reached by January.

The fact that no contract was in place, and no agreement made to adhere to the terms of the old contract, gave the School Committee a window of opportunity. And it took it.

At that time, school officials say, the district owed more than $7.4 million in back bills, half of them dating back more than 90 days.

Teachers’ salaries and benefits consumed 63 percent of the district’s total revenue when the committee imposed the changes. The cuts saved the district more than $3.3 million.

The teachers’ union then filed an unfair-labor-practice complaint with the State Labor Relations Board and the School Committee countered by taking the matter to Superior Court.

In their briefs, the union and its parent organization, National Education Association Rhode Island, believe the committee exaggerated its teacher salary and benefit expenses while at the same time, it deliberately underestimated its revenues for the last fiscal year.

But even if the committee faced a deficit, the union leaders say the law ordering the School Committee to avoid deficit spending does not authorize the committee to disregard the State Labor Relations Act and Certified School Teachers Arbitration Act, which they say require districts to maintain the status quo of the previous expired contract until a new contract is reached.

“These questions — which concern whether a party required by state law to collectively bargain is permitted to abandon that process at will — are arguably some of the most critical labor law issues ever presented since the enactment of the [labor relations and teacher arbitration acts] and cut to the very heart of collective bargaining in this state,” according to the legal briefs from union lawyers John E. DeCubellis Jr. and Vincent P. Santaniello.

But Larisa argues, “The issue, especially in East Providence, is really whether a teacher union can — by unilaterally saying no to reasonable and necessary cuts in salaries and benefits — force a double-digit tax increase on local taxpayers to balance a school budget.

“Or whether, at the end of a collective bargaining agreement and ultimate impasse, a school committee has the right and obligation to cut excessive salaries and benefits to the extent necessary to balance that year’s budget with available funds,” he concluded.

City and district officials are asking Silverstein to rule:

• That the committee acted lawfully with its January cuts;

• That the contract, which expired in October 2008, had no force or effect after its expiration;

•That the State Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction in this matter;

•Or that if the State Labor Relations Board can rule on the matter, it cannot order the committee to spend any money that has not been allocated to it by the City Council or that would result in the district having to deficit-spend.

Silverstein’s ruling will need to interpret a state law that says, “Notwithstanding any provisions of the general laws to the contrary, the … School Committee of each school district shall be responsible for maintaining a school budget which does not result in a debt.”

If the initial phrase means what it says, the School Committee’s lawyers say, the committee’s actions were “lawful” and, in the absence of a valid contract, could be done without approval from the union.

“Any opposite construction would refer [the regulation] meaningless,” their briefs state. “… It would completely strip the committee of its power and duty to avoid incurring debt and, instead, arm the union and the labor board with the power to veto this important fiscal responsibility.”

In a Cranston case earlier this year, Silverstein ruled state law allows no labor contract to have a term of “more than three years.” The East Providence contract that expired in October 2008 was a three-year pact.

Silverstein’s decision in the Cranston case is being appealed before the state Supreme Court, but the East Providence School Committee’s lawyers also say the General Assembly gave them authority to develop educational policies and adopt and maintain a budget. They say allowing the labor board to impose contract terms would strip the committee of these powers.

The labor board has delayed hearing the union’s unfair labor practice charges against the district until Silverstein makes his ruling.

The union counters that the committee had a legal responsibility to live by the terms and conditions of the old contract while negotiations were under way on a new one. They also say the committee simply went “through the motions” of mediation and arbitration in 2008 because the committee was “uncompromising” from the outset and didn’t plan to budge from its contract demands.

They say the committee’s actions were a “classic failure to bargain in good faith and constitutes unlawful ‘surface bargaining,’ ” which is within the labor board’s purview.

“The committee concludes that the collective bargaining laws must give way,” the union’s briefs state. “…Those conclusions are erroneous and without merit. The committee cannot simply pick and choose which laws it will follow and those that it will disregard.”

The union also says the committee took other actions — such as creating new positions and raising other employees’ salaries — after January, showing that the committee didn’t need to cut the teachers’ pay and benefits to get the district out of debt.

The union also questions if there was a debt at all because they say the “committee’s revenues significantly exceeded its expenses for fiscal year 2009 by at least $8,682,283 even before it implemented the salary and benefit changes.”

In addition, the union says the committee “failed to take available measures to mitigate its alleged deficit,” such as asking the City Council for more money or filing suit under the state’s Caruolo Act to seek more money from the city (the School Committee had filed a Caruolo action for the 2008 fiscal year, an action that has since been dropped). Or, the union says, the School Committee could have insisted the city raise property taxes to the state’s levy limit of 5 percent for fiscal 2009, rather than the city’s lower cap of 3.5 percent.

Finally, the union emphasizes the district has operated with a deficit for the last several years and routinely fails to adhere to statutory requirements.

In their final filing with Judge Silverstein, the School Committee lawyers wrote, “The union asserts a myriad of factual allegations, many of which are simply fantastic. Others misrepresented the evidence, others are unsupported by the record, and still others are irrelevant. “…All that is relevant is that, on Jan. 5, 2009, when it implemented the salary and benefit changes, the East Providence School Committee did so to avoid debt in fiscal year 2009. All of the evidence supports that conclusion.”

TIMELINE East Providence teacher saga

November 2006: Taxpayers approve a 3.5 percent tax cap levy lower than the state’s cap.

November 2007: School district starts the fiscal year with a projected $1-million deficit.

March 2008: City Council appoints Anthony Carcieri to School Committee, ending Democratic majority.

August 2008: School officials report the district is $4.27 million in the red.

September 2008: School Committee files two unfair labor practice charges against East Providence Education Association. Two sides are at impasse without even agreeing on ground rules.

October 2008: School Committee sues the city under the Caruolo Act for more money so it doesn’t end the fiscal year in a deficit.

Oct. 31, 2008: Contract with city’s teachers expires.

November 2008: City teachers vote unanimously to continue working under the terms of the contract that just expired. Arbitration begins.

November 2008: School officials announce a projected $4.2-million deficit for the fiscal year that just began Nov. 1. The amount is in addition to the $4.2-million deficit from previous fiscal years.

November 2008: After elections, the Democrats no longer have the majority on the City Council or School Committee.

December 2008: Arbitrator makes nonbinding ruling on teacher dispute. Local teachers’ union votes to accept the plan; School Committee rejects it.

Jan. 5, 2009: School Committee unilaterally cuts teacher salaries and benefits.

January 2009: Teacher union asks Superior Court Judge Mark A. Pfeiffer to temporarily restrain the district from making its cuts. The union is denied.

February 2009: Teacher union appeals to state Supreme Court and court refuses to intervene. The union files unfair labor practice charges against the committee’s actions with the state Labor Relations Board and it agrees to hear issues.

March 12, 2009: Committee files lawsuit asking the Superior Court to hear the matter instead of the state Labor Relations Board. The labor board later decides to delay its proceedings until Judge Michael A. Silverstein rules.

August 2009: School Committee and City Council sign agreement to eliminate a lingering $5.2-million school deficit over the next six fiscal years.

September 2009: Teachers vote just before school starts to withdraw from volunteer activities in the district’s schools. State auditor general rejects committee and council’s deficit-elimination plan.

Sept. 11, 2009: Committee announces it will unilaterally institute “pay for performance” plan for teachers, beginning in July 2011.

Nov. 13, 2009: Union files unfair labor complaint against committee’s unilateral pay for performance plan.

Nov. 19, 2009: The committee makes cuts to comply with budget reductions ordered by the City Council.

apina@projo.com