Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-8-1 (2026)

Capacity to sue on behalf of employees for contract violations

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Suits or actions at law for the violation by an employer of contracts of employment between the employer and his or her employees who are represented by a labor union as their legally constituted bargaining agent, and whose rights and duties as employees are set forth in a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and labor union, as the legal representative of the employees, may be brought in the name of the union for the benefit of the employees. This section applies to any previous violation or violation which may be made in the future by the employer; provided, that any action at law brought by the labor union for the benefit of the employees shall be subject to the provisions of §§ 9-1-15 — 9-1-24.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1960–2003 · leading case: Rhode Island Bhd. of Corr. Officers v. Rhode Island, 264 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.R.I. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rhode Island Bhd. of Corr. Officers v. Rhode Island, 264 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.R.I. 2003). · cites it 11× “At oral argument, this Court questioned whether plaintiff has standing to bring individual breach of contract claims on behalf of its Members.”

Trs. of the Local Union No. 17 Sheet Metal Workers' Apprenticeship Fund v. May Eng'g Co., 951 F. Supp. 346 (D.R.I. 1997). · cites it 8× “13 The Court suggests that R.I.Gen.Laws § 28-8-1, which authorizes a labor organization to sue an employer to enforce the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, presents the most analogous cause of action under Rhode Island law: Capacity to sue on behalf of employees for…”

United Textile Wkrs. of Am. v. Lister Worsted Co., 160 A.2d 358 (R.I. 1960). · cites it 2× “The trial justice concluded that the phraseology in §28-8-1, “Suits or actions at law * * * may be brought * * *,” coupled with the provision in §28-8-3, that the remedy was not in substitution of the employees’ right to sue but was expressly “cumulative thereto,” clearly…”

Romano v. Mancini, 412 A.2d 1131 (R.I. 1980). “We hold that the trial justice was correct in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in view of the legal remedy available under the collective bargaining agreement.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.