CRANSTON –– As the City of Warwick began laying out its case for replacing the city’s unionized crossing guards before the state Labor Relations Board yesterday, labor leader Donald Iannazzi expressed frustration at the prospect of a drawn-out hearing and raised the specter of a strike.

“I suppose this organization is left to take to the streets to exercise its rights,” said Iannazzi, business manager for Local 1033 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America as it became clear that the city would not be able to wrap up its side of the case yesterday and the board’s crowded calendar did not having any openings for a continuance until June.

When the labor board said there was nothing it could do to expedite the matter because it is booked solid, Iannazzi, who is a lawyer and was handling the union’s case yesterday, said, “This action is saying to hell with collective bargaining … when we get to it, we get it.”

Asked, as he was leaving the board’s Pontiac Avenue offices, what he meant by taking “to the streets,” Iannazzi said “strike.” He said such a job action could happen as early as next week.

Shortly after Jan. 1, the city began sending layoff notices to its 18 unionized crossing guards after more than a year of negotiations failed to produce a new contract that would pass muster with the City Council. Last fall, after working for more than a year under the terms of a prior contract that expired in June 2006, Local 1033 reached a tentative agreement with Mayor Scott Avedisian’s administration.

The agreement, which needed council approval, froze wages but kept the health insurance, pension benefits and health coverage for retirees that had made the part-time guards a lightning rod for criticisms about fat in the budget and the burden it puts on taxpayers.

The City Council unanimously shot down the tentative agreement, with council members saying they would not support health insurance or any hefty benefit packages for employees who work an average of 20 hours per week.

About a month after the council’s November vote, Avedisian announced that because of the labor impasse, the city would lay off the unionized guards by Feb. 15 and replace them with 23 per diem employees who would receive $40 a day and no benefits.

Despite the union’s attempt to stop the process –– Iannazzi sought a Superior Court injunction and filed an unfair-labor-practices charge with the Labor Relations Board –– the city filled the nonunion jobs. The faces didn’t change, because members of Local 1033 were the most experienced applicants and received the new positions, city officials said.

During that time, the labor board issued a formal complaint against the city based on Iannazzi’s initial charge. (A Superior Court ruling on the union’s request for injunctive relief is still being awaited.)

After yesterday’s hearing was recessed to early June, city officials responded to Iannazzi’s remarks by saying that the safety of children is a serious matter and they hope the union does not act rashly.

Avedisian and the city’s police chief, Col. Stephen McCartney, noted that the crossing guards now hold nonunion positions.

The crossing guards are overseen by the traffic division of the Police Department, and McCartney said that if “Mr. Iannazzi is seriously considering any such action, I certainly hope he would communicate with me first.

“Public safety is a serious consideration and I’d have to do contingency planning,” he said. “I certainly hope [the union] would handle things responsibly and, no matter what options it is considering, take into account that we are talking about children and public safety.”

In summing up the union’s position during opening remarks before the labor board yesterday, Iannazzi contended that the city was premature in declaring a negotiations impasse and that the union was willing to return to the bargaining table after the council rejected the tentative agreement.

Since the city did not try to resume bargaining in good faith, there was no impasse, Iannazzi argued, and the city is still bound to recognize the union and work with it to come up with an alternate agreement. “Warwick prematurely quit the game,” he said.

Assistant City Solicitor Diana Pearson countered that the city had invested a year of negotiations and, with the City Council having final say on labor contracts, there were no further steps to be taken. At no point during the negotiations or informal discussions, she asserted, did the union leadership indicate willingness to give up the health insurance or other benefits even though they were well publicized sticking points with the City Council.

“They came to an impasse and the two parties need to part ways,” Pearson said. “It is an operation in futility to expect the city of Warwick to sit down and negotiate for how long –– three years, five years?”

Warwick’s controversy with its crossing guards is often likened to a similar case in Cranston dating back to 2003 when then-Mayor Stephen P. Laffey moved to fire union guards and pointed to them as an example of government glut. But there are major differences.

When Laffey first attempted to fire the guards there was a contract in place and he was relying on a portion of the City Charter which gave the city the right to control its structure and eliminate specific divisions. Laffey ended up privatizing the crossing guards’ jobs in 2005 when the contract expired. There is no indication that the City of Cranston made any attempt to negotiate a new agreement.

The case is still being fought in the courts.

bpoliche@projo.com