Source: http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/Summ-SERA.htm
Timestamp: 2018-07-23 01:50:38
Document Index: 530330826

Matched Legal Cases: ['§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§52', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5']

CSBLR Summaries of Board Decisions - SERA (State Employee Relations Act)
SERA OUTLINE – SUMMARY OF BOARD DECISIONS - JANUARY 1, 1980 – DECEMBER 1, 2005
STATUS AS EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION
STATUS OF EMPLOYEES/COMMUNITY
ADDITIONS/EXCLUSIONS
PROHIBITED PRACTICES - EMPLOYERS
REFUSING TO REDUCE A CBA TO WRITING
INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §5-273-10 (b): A notification will be considered timely if it is filed between August 1 and August 31 inclusive of the year prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining contract covering the employees who are the subject of the petition. After the agent has determined the existence of the requisite showing of interest by the employee organization filing the notification and any party filing a challenge, the board may order an election or a hearing to show cause why an election should not be held. The show cause hearing, if ordered, shall be held by September 15, and the board shall use its best efforts to schedule elections prior to October 1. The board may consider petitions filed at other times if compelling reasons are shown for deviation from the above rule.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-270 When used in sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive:
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 1945 (9/26/80): The Protective Services Employees Coalition filed a petition seeking to represent the NP-5 bargaining unit represented by the incumbent union, CSEA. AFSCME intervened in the proceedings. After hearing, the Labor Board determined the Protective Services Employees Coalition was an employee organization under the Act and directed an election.
STATUS OF EMPLOYEES/COMMUNITY OF INTEREST
(b) “Employee” means any employee of an employer, whether or not in the classified service of the employer, except elected or appointed officials other than special deputy sheriffs, board and commission members, managerial employees and confidential employees.
(g) “Managerial employee” means any individual in a position in which the principal functions are characterized by not fewer than two of the following, provided for any position in any unit of the system of higher education, one such two functions shall be as specified in subdivision (4) of this subsection: (1) Responsibility for direction of staff; (2) development, implementation and evaluation of goals and objectives consistent with agency mission and policy; (3) participation in the formulation of agency policy; or (4) a major role in the administration of collective bargaining agreements or major personnel decisions, or both, including staffing, hiring, firing, evaluation, promotion and training of employees.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-275 (b) (1) The board shall determine the appropriateness of a unit which shall be the public employer unit or a subdivision thereof. In determining the appropriateness of the unit, the board shall: (1) Take into consideration, but shall not be limited to, the following: (A) Public employees must have an identifiable community of interest, and (B) the effects of overfragmentation; (2) not decide that any unit is appropriate if (A) such unit includes both professional and nonprofessional employees, unless a majority of such professional employees vote for inclusion in such unit, or (B) such unit includes both Department of Correction employees at or above the level of lieutenant and Department of Correction employees below the level of lieutenant; (3) take into consideration that when the state is the employer, it will be bargaining on a state-wide basis unless issues involve working conditions peculiar to a given governmental employment locale; (4) permit the faculties of (A) The University of Connecticut, (B) the Connecticut State University system, and (C) the state regional vocational-technical schools to each comprise separate units which in each case shall have the right to bargain collectively with its board of trustees or its designated representative; and (5) permit the community college faculty as they existed prior to July 1, 1992, to continue to comprise separate units which in each case shall have the right to bargain collectively with its board of trustees or its designated representative. Nonfaculty professional staff of the above institutions may by mutual agreement be included in such bargaining units, or they may form a separate bargaining unit of their own. This section shall not be deemed to prohibit multiunit bargaining.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 4070 (8/17/05): The Union filed a petition seeking to represent an unrepresented unit composed of Correctional captains and counselor supervisors. The Union already represented a supervisory unit of Correctional lieutenants. The Labor Board found that to allow another separate unit of supervisors employed by DOC would result in overfragmentation and dismissed the petition. The Labor Board also stated: “we cannot foresee any impediment to a unit composed of lieutenants, captains, and counselor supervisors. If a modification petition for the lieutenants’ unit was before us, we would instruct the Agent to conduct an election.”
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, Decision No. 4018 (2/3/05): The Union sought an election for a separate unit of supervisory judicial marshals. The State objected arguing that SERA requires the broadest possible bargaining unit and also provides for the inclusion of supervisors with non-supervisors. As such, the State argued that the supervisory judicial marshals should be included in one of the two existing Judicial bargaining units. The Labor Board rejected the State’s objection and found that the proposed unit was appropriate under the particular circumstances of this case.
University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3694 (5/14/99): The Union filed a petition to represent a proposed bargaining unit consisting of the full-time medical school faculty at the University of Connecticut Health Center. The Health Center objected to the petition on the grounds that the faculty were managerial employees pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 5-270(g) and the United States Supreme Court decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 662 (1980). The Health Center also argued that a separate faculty unit was inappropriate pursuant to Section 5-275(b) of the State Employee Relations Act (SERA). After a lengthy hearing, the Labor Board concluded that the medical school faculty were not "managerial employees" as defined by Section 5-270(g) of the SERA, because they did not play a major role in the administration of collective bargaining agreements or in major personnel decisions. Because Section 5-270(g) establishes the criteria to determine the managerial status of state employees, the Board did not find Yeshiva controlling. Finally, the Labor Board determined that Section 5-275(b) did not mandate a single unit for all faculty, and as a result the Labor Board could exercise its discretion to determine whether more than one faculty unit would be appropriate. The Labor Board issued a direction of election for all full-time faculty.
University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3694-A (5/25/99): The original direction of election in this case (Decision No. 3694) established the eligible voters as all employees who were on the payroll as of the date the original petition was filed in 1997 and who remained on the payroll as of the date of the election. Due to employee turnover and the lapse of time from the date the petition was filed to the date of the election, the Health Center requested that the Labor Board reconsider the eligibility date because approximately 25% of the claimed unit would otherwise be considered ineligible. Relying on Regulation 5-273-17(c), the Labor Board modified the direction of election to establish that eligible voters would include all employees who were on the payroll as of the date of the direction of election.
Sheriff’s Dept., Fairfield County, Decision No. 3106-B (12/1/93): Although this case was later vacated by the Superior Court on another ground, in its’ decision, the Labor Board outlined the applicable tests (economic realities & right of control) to determine whether an individual is an employee under the Act. Appeal sustained, State of Connecticut v. CSBLR, CV94-053361 (5/4/95, Munro, J.) In which the Superior Court found the Legislature had excluded Special Deputy Sheriffs from the protections of the Act.
Fairfield County Sheriffs Department, Decision No. 3048 (9/30/92): The Union filed a petition seeking to represent the special deputy sheriffs. The Labor Board found the Public Act No. 92-61 foreclosed any viable petition for representation of the proposed unit and dismissed the petition.
Board of Trustees, State Technical Colleges, Decision No. 1940 (9/23/80): The Union filed a petition seeking to represent a unit of administrative faculty. The State objected to the petition and urged the Labor Board to dismiss arguing that the employees in question were managerial and appointed officials. Prior to the statutory exclusion of managerial employees and the statutory inclusion of the definition thereof, the Labor Board dismissed the State’s arguments regarding an implied managerial exclusion in the statute. The Labor Board also reiterated that the exclusion in the Act for appointed officials is for those officials appointed by the Governor.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 1908 (6/24/80): The State Management Association of Connecticut (SMAC) filed a petition seeking to represent a unit of managerial employees. The Labor Board rejected the State’s argument that the Legislature implied a managerial exclusion in the Act and determined that the employees were not excluded solely on the ground of their managerial status. PLEASE NOTE that the Act was later amended to expressly exclude managerial employees.
State of Connecticut (NP-6) and CEUI, Decision No. 2178 (1/12/83): CEUI filed a petition seeking to represent the NP-6 bargaining unit represented by 1199, the incumbent Union. Upon examination of the cards, the Agent invalidated a number of cards because the cards failed to include language asserting a “desire to be exclusively represented for the purposes of collective bargaining … and request the designation of said organization as their exclusive representative.” The Labor Board dismissed the petition as CEUI had failed to produce the requisite showing of interest.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-275 (c) An employee organization or an employer may file a petition with the board seeking a clarification or modification of an existing unit. The power of the board to make such clarifications and modifications shall be limited to those times when a petition for clarification or modification is filed by either an employee organization or an employer. No petition seeking a clarification or modification of an existing unit shall be considered to be timely by the board during the term of a written collective bargaining agreement, except that a petition for clarification or modification filed by an employee organization concerning either (1) a newly created position or (2) any employee who is not represented by an employee organization, may be filed at any time.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2652 (6/30/88): CSEA filed a petition to modify the P-3B bargaining unit by removing certain job titles from the P-2 unit and including incumbents of that job title in the P-3B bargaining unit. AFSCME objected to the petition as untimely. The Labor Board found compelling reason to order an election after balancing “the right of self-determination for employees to choose their bargaining representatives and the need to preserve stability and avoid unnecessary burdens to the bargaining relationship.”
State of Connecticut (Office of Labor Relations), Decision No. 1913 (7/10/80): CSEA sought to modify the P-2 bargaining unit by removing one job title from the P-3B unit and including incumbents of that job title in the P-2 unit. The Labor Board found the petition untimely as it was filed during the pendency of a collective bargaining agreement and outside the applicable window period.
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 4001 (9/22/04): State sought to remove certain computer technology employees from an existing bargaining unit arguing these employees were confidential under the Act. The Union objected. The Labor Board found the employees at issue did not have meaningful access to confidential bargaining information and dismissed the petition.
University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3922 (7/25/03): The Union represented a unit of professional employees and was seeking to add Post Doctoral Research Fellows. The employer objected to the petition on three grounds: the inclusion of the research fellows was barred by contract; the research fellows were excluded by statute; and no community of interest existed between the members of the existing unit and the research fellows. The Labor Board dismissed the employer’s objections and ordered an election.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3416 (6/28/96): The Union filed a clarification petition seeking to modify the existing unit to include the classification of State School Substitute Instructor. The Board Agent recommended dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the position of State School Substitute Instructor did not fall within the scope of the existing bargaining unit and that the proper method for including these positions was by a Petition for Modification accompanied by a proper showing of interest. The Union objected to the recommendation for dismissal. The Labor Board dismissed the petition, agreeing with the Agent's recommendation that the appropriate method for inclusion of the positions was by a Petition for Modification. The Board rejected the Union's contention that the positions should be "accreted" under the authority of Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 440 F.2d 7, 76 LRRM 1970 (1971).
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3145 (10/27/93): The Union filed a petition seeking modification of the existing bargaining unit to include Police Lieutenants presently excluded as managerial employees. The Labor Board utilized the definition of managerial employee now included in the Act to determine the employees were not managerial and modified the bargaining unit.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2980 (1/24/92): The State filed a petition to modify the P-5 bargaining unit by removing two job titles from the NP-3 unit and including incumbents of that job title in the P-5 bargaining unit. The Labor Board utilized both the “titular” and functional test to determine modification was appropriate under either test.
State of Connecticut (DMR), Decision No. 2585 (10/6/87): CSEA filed a petition to clarify the P-3B bargaining unit includes two specific job titles. These positions were placed in the P-2 bargaining unit when created by the State in 1985. AFSCME intervened and asserted the disputed titles are legally within the P-2 bargaining unit. The Labor Board stated: “where there exist two units which are objectively appropriate for inclusion of a classification, it has been our settled practice to let the employees involved choose the bargaining unit into which they should be placed” and ordered an election.
State of Connecticut (Executive Branch), Decision No. 2284 (2/29/84): The State filed a petition to modify the P-1 bargaining unit seeking to exclude certain job titles the State alleged were managerial in light of the legislation which amended the Act to include a definition of managerial employees excluded from collective bargaining. The Labor Board examined the principal functions of the positions and modified the unit to exclude one position, dismissing the balance of the petition.
State of Connecticut (NP-2), Decision No. 2157 (9/17/82): The State filed a petition to modify the NP-2 bargaining unit seeking to remove three positions from that bargaining unit and have those positions included in the P-4 bargaining unit. The Labor Board examined the criteria necessary for a position to be designated as professional and applied the following functional test adopted in Edward Hanna (UConn), Decision No. 1800 (1979) in regard to the fourth criterion: “if a person functions, in actual practice, utilize the kind of knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning of the kind specified in the Act he may be a statutory professional without regard to his title.”
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2126 (5/13/82): The State filed a petition to modify the NP-3 bargaining unit seeking to remove the position of publicist and have that position included in the P-5 bargaining unit. The State also filed a petition to modify the P-5 bargaining unit seeking to remove the position of public works real property planning analyst and have that position included in the P-4 bargaining unit. As to the position of publicist, the Labor Board found the position was professional and ordered modification. As to the position of real property planning analyst, the Labor Board found that where the Labor Board was “asked to review the appropriateness of certain classifications within a bargaining unit for the first time, we have the broad superintending powers to modify these agreements wherever we find a far greater community of interest between a job classification and another bargaining unit.” and ordered modification.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2122 (4/16/82): The State filed a petition to modify the P-5 bargaining unit seeking to remove the position of public health program assistant to the P-1 bargaining unit. The Labor Board found that the State failed to establish a “far greater community of interest” between this position and the P-1 bargaining unit and dismissed the petition.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2117 (2/23/82): The State filed a petition to modify the P-4 bargaining unit seeking to remove certain laboratory professional positions to the P-1 bargaining unit. The Labor Board stated: “it has been our consistent practice, where two units are objectively appropriate for inclusion of a classification or group of classifications to let the employees involved determine which unit they should be placed” and ordered an election.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2117-A (6/4/82): The Labor Board issued a direction for an election to be conducted among certain laboratory personnel to determine if such personnel wished to be included in the P-4 bargaining unit represented by CSEA or the P-1 bargaining unit represented by 1199. CSEA filed an objection to the election alleging the State provided 1199 with an unfair advantage in violation of the Act when it suspended its’ policy prohibiting campaigning during work time for both Unions. The policy was suspended following the State’s denial of access to an 1199 organizer who did not comply with the policy by providing advance notice of her intent to enter the workplace. The Labor Board dismissed the objections noting that there was no showing that the impression that 1199 was the more potent labor organization because they had allegedly caused the suspension of the policy was ever communicated to any potential voters.
State of Connecticut (NP-3), Decision No. 2095-A (12/31/81): After a runoff election was conducted, SEIU objected to certain election conduct alleging large numbers of voters were disenfranchised in that the election list provided by the State was flawed and that the voter identification card system employed by the State was extremely inadequate and allowed for widespread abuse. The Labor Board determined SEIU was estopped from objecting to the election list in that the same list was used in the election previous to the run-off and SEUI had made no similar allegation at that time. Further, the Labor Board found SEUI failed to establish the voter identification card system as extremely inadequate and dismissed the objections.
State of Connecticut (NP-3), Decision No. 2095 (11/6/81): The incumbent union, CSEA, objected to certain election conduct of another employee organization, 1199. CSEA alleged 1199 had perpetuated a misrepresentation to which CSEA did not have time to respond before the election. The Labor Board stated: “an election should be set aside only where there has been a misrepresentation or other similar campaign trickery, which involves a substantial departure from the truth, at a time which prevents the other party or parties from making an effective reply, so that the misrepresentation, whether deliberate or not, may reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the election.” The Labor Board found no substantial departure from the truth of 1199’s statements and dismissed the objections.
CSEA, Decision No. 4096 (10/27/05: The State sought a declaratory ruling from the Labor Board concerning whether three Union proposals concerned mandatory subjects of bargaining. The first issue regarded a Union proposal that the grievance arbitrator may retain jurisdiction in a case in order to finalize remedy. The State argued that the proposal would contravene the provisions of C.G.S. §52-418 (a) (4). The Labor Board rejected the State’s arguments and found: “Because arbitration is a creature of contract, the parties are free to negotiate the terms that will govern the arbitrator’s conduct.. this language would change the scope of authority granted to an arbitrator.” The second issue involved alternative work schedules. The Labor Board found this to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. The third proposal sought to mandate the State retain and make available for inspection a description of the process for ranking and evaluating merit exams. The Labor Board found this proposal was prohibited by §5-272 (d) of the Act.
State of Connecticut Judicial Dept., Decision No. 3924 (9/2/03): The Union sought a declaratory ruling concerning the successor employer status of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch regarding alleged violations of the Act committed by the former Connecticut Office of the County Sheriff or the individual County Sheriff’s offices. The parties asked the Labor Board to rule on three questions. First, would the Judicial Branch be liable for any remedy the Labor Board may order for prohibited practice complaints pending prior to December 1, 2000. Second, if a violation is found, does the Labor Board have the authority to order any remedy with respect to any period subsequent to November 30, 2000. Finally, may the Judicial Branch establish initial conditions of employment of Judicial Marshals to be effective on or about December 1, 2000. In 1997, the Legislature granted the special deputy sheriffs bargaining rights culminating with their right to choose a bargaining representative in 1999 in PA 97-148. After the voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution abolishing the offices of high sheriff and the passage of PA 00-99, special deputy sheriffs became subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch and their titles were changed to Judicial Marshals. Since December 1, 2000, the former special deputy sheriffs continue to perform the same essential services, with no hiatus, at the same locations utilizing the same equipment. Further, while the Legislature clearly imposed a bargaining obligation upon the Judicial Branch, the Judicial Branch was permitted to set initial terms and conditions of employment for the bargaining unit subject to later negotiations. Based on these circumstances, the Labor Board found: 1) the Judicial Branch may be liable for any remedy the Labor Board may order with respect to any period prior to 12/1/00 if there are circumstances under which the Judicial Branch perpetuates an illegal action begun prior to December 1, 2000; 2) the Judicial Branch is liable for any remedy subsequent to November 30, 2000; and 3) the Judicial Branch was permitted to set initial conditions of employment subject to the duty to bargain with the Union.
Board of Trustees for the Connecticut State University System, Decision No. 3859 (2/25/02): The Trustees requested a ruling from the Labor Board concerning the nature of certain Union proposals involving: (1) a separate grievance procedure for claims of violations of the non-discrimination clause of the parties’ contract; (2) access to private and secure electronic mail for bargaining unit members; and (3) increased "reassigned time" for faculty members based on a student to faculty ratio. Concerning the grievance procedure, the Labor Board found the subject to be mandatory because it merely created an alternative grievance procedure under the contract for certain types of contractual violations. Although the Trustees argued that the procedure was usurped by certain statutory and regulatory affirmative action requirements, the Labor Board disagreed. The Labor Board further found that the Union’s proposal concerning electronic mail was a mandatory subject of bargaining because it contained a proviso recognizing potential legal limitations on securing public sector documents. The resulting proposal, therefore, did not run afoul of any statutory or regulatory restrictions regarding public employees’ e-mail or other documents. Finally, the Labor Board found that the Union’s proposal concerning the ratio of students to teachers concerned workload, a mandatory subject of bargaining. Acknowledging that the proposal, if awarded, might significantly impact on the number of part-time faculty the schools were able to hire, the Labor Board found that such an impact on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining does not transform a mandatory subject into a permissive one. Arguments concerning the merits and need for the proposal should be made to the arbitrator.
University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3818 (4/10/01): The original certification for the bargaining unit stated that Post-Doctoral Fellows were excluded "provided that the employer shall establish that they are not properly classified as Research Associates or Research Assistants and that the employer shall reclassify them under a payroll title not properly include in the unit." The Union filed a petition seeking clarification that the position of Post-Doctoral fellow was included in the bargaining unit. The Agent of the Board dismissed the petition because the proper procedure to include an otherwise excluded position in the bargaining unit would be a petition for modification of the bargaining unit. The Union then petitioned for a declaratory ruling on the bargaining unit classification for the Fellows. The Labor Board found that the question presented was inappropriate for a declaratory ruling, and would be properly answered through a petition for modification of the bargaining unit.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3548 (11/10/97): The Employer filed a petition for a declaratory ruling to determine if two Union proposals constituted nonmandatory subjects of bargaining. The first proposal, involving the portion of a dog handler's day devoted to the physical care of the canine, was found by the Labor Board to be a nonmandatory subject because it was management's prerogative to determine how much of the officer's work day was to be dedicated to canine care. The second proposal, involving the removal from a canine handler position, was found to constitute a mandatory subject because it would result in dramatic changes to long-term assignments.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3543 (10/29/97): The Union filed a petition for a declaratory ruling to determine whether the subject of establishing a statewide preferred provider network for state employees suffering from work-related injuries was a mandatory subject of bargaining. Applying the standard DeCourcy analysis, the Labor Board found that the entire subject affected benefits and/or working conditions for injured workers and therefore constituted a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Union also requested a declaratory ruling regarding whether eight specific proposals involving various elements of the preferred provider network, such as fee schedules, safety committees, physician selection and eligibility for participation, and light duty programs, constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Union argued that insurance in general is a form of compensation and as such requires bargaining. However, the Labor Board found that any meaningful bargaining was circumscribed due to the extensive statutory and regulatory requirements involved in establishing a Worker's Compensation managed care program. Thus, with the exception of light duty assignments which the State conceded were mandatory subjects, the remainder of the Union's proposals were deemed to not require bargaining.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3155 (11/12/93): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain monetary proposals made by the Union during the course of a specific reopener constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found that “independent of the reopener provision of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the Union’s proposal constituted a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the Union’s proposal was plausible within the reoperner language of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, remained a mandatory subject of bargaining.”
Board of Trustees for Community-Technical Colleges, Decision No. 2901 (3/22/91): Board of Trustees for Community Technical Colleges, Decision No. 2901-A (3/25/92): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain proposals made by the Union during the course of negotiations for a bargaining unit consisting of faculty constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board employed the balancing test first enunciated by the Connecticut Supreme Court in West Hartford Educ. Assn. Inc. v. DeCourcy in making the determinations sought. [Appeal sustained in part, State of Connecticut v. CSBLR, CV910394862, JD Hartford, 12/31/92 (Flynn, J.)].
CSEA (P-3B Unit), Decision No. 2804-A (12/31/91): The Union filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain proposals made by the State during the course of negotiations for a bargaining unit consisting of school instructors constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found the following proposals mandatory subjects of bargaining: payment of additional compensation for recruitment and/or retention, step placement of new hires, superseniority for Union stewards in the event of involuntary transfers, instructor pay plans regarding bargaining unit members, the number of student contact days, number of work days in a school year, and, with qualification, arbitration of part-time work requests. [Appeal sustained in part, State of Connecticut v. CSBLR, CV 910379709, JD Hartford, 12/31/92 (Flynn, J.) The Superior Court remanded to the Labor Board that portion of the decision which concerned superseniority for stewardsand the academic effect of certain bumping procedures and affirmed the Labor Board’s reasoning in regard to the State’s appeal of the number of work days in a school year.] State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2804-B (10/31/95): On remand from Superior Court, the issue before the Board was whether an alleged "superseniority clause" constitutes an illegal subject of bargaining. Board declared contract proposal illegal to the extent that it protected union stewards from layoff within their jurisdiction because the proposal had the effect of granting additional benefits to stewards and was not justified by legitimate union business considerations. In making this determination, the Labor Board noted that in the circumstances presented in this case, a steward who leaves his/her jurisdiction does not forfeit his/her stewardship nor does the contract prohibit stewards from handling grievances outside of their particular work locations.
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 2860 (10/30/90): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether §5-276a (a) of the Act allows for binding arbitration for mid-term modifications of bargaining units. The Labor Board found that the clear language of the Act limited mediation and binding arbitration procedures “to original and successor collective bargaining agreements or wage reopeners, and is inapplicable to mid-term modifications of bargaining units.” The Labor Board further found that in the circumstances described above, “an employer is free to implement unilaterally after final impasse a change in wages, hours and other conditions of employment which he had offered to the Union and which the Union has rejected during the course of negotiations.”
Connecticut State Board of Education Vocational Technical Schools, Decision No. 2757 (8/18/89): The Union filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain proposals made by the Union during the course of negotiations for a bargaining unit consisting of school administrators constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found teacher evaluations (including school administrators below the level of superintendent) are a non-mandatory subject of collective bargaining pursuant to the Teacher Evaluation Act (TEA).
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 2743 (6/19/89): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain proposals made by the Union during the course of negotiations for a bargaining unit consisting of faculty constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found that a proposal that the State screen all inmates for AIDS before inclusion into the general population deeply concerned the health and safety of bargaining unit members and was, therefore, a mandatory subject of bargaining. [Appeal remanded to the Labor Board by stipulation of the parties, State of Connecticut v. CSBLR, CV 890369080, JD Hartford, 12/7/92 The parties agreed to remand the matter to the Labor Board for a ruling on whether the Union’s proposal for mandatory AIDS testing of inmates an illegal subject of bargaining in violation of the AIDS testing and confidentiality provisions of certain public acts.]
Connecticut State University Board of Trustees, Decision No. 2713 (3/9/89): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether a proposal regarding inclusion of a faculty member on search committees for Vice Presidents and Deans was a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Labor Board found the proposal to be a mandatory subject of bargaining.
State of Connecticut (DCJ), Decision No. 2708 (2/27/89); State of Connecticut (DCJ), Decision No. 2708-A (6/21/89): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether two proposals made by the Union during the course of negotiations constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found that voluntary deductions from employees’ salaries for Union political action funds to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Labor Board further found that the question of who will represent the employer at a certain level of the grievance procedure to be a non-mandatory subject of bargaining.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2;663 (8/26/88): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain proposals made by the Union during the course of negotiations constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found a past practice clause would be a mandatory subject of bargaining if the clause was limited to mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board also found proposals concerning paid union business leave, apprenticeship programs, bargaining unit job safety committee, screening for employees exposed to asbestos, equipping vehicles driven by bargaining unit members with two way radios, the standard for granting or denying employee vacation requests, workers compensation, negotiation over the impact of the employer’s change to job specifications, a prohibition on red-circling titles without prior agreement of the Union, manning clauses premised on safety concerns, and a proposal concerning a savings clause, to be mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board further found the question of removing a position or classification from the bargaining unit concerned a non-mandatory subject of bargaining that could only be decided by the Labor Board.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2645 (6/13/88): The Union filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether the State Police Commissioner, when reviewing police powers of permanent employees, is an employer under the Act. The Labor Board found: “The State Police Commissioner, when acting in review of police powers of permanent employees in the Protective Services bargaining unit is not an employer as that term is utilized under the Act; such reviews are guided by the provisions and standards for license revocation set forth in the UAPA, not by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.”
Judicial Department, State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2065 (7/14/81): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether certain reopeners should be negotiated with the incumbent Union, CSEA, or the successor Unions certified to begin representation 7/1/81. The Labor Board found that for purposes of negotiation, the successor Unions were the appropriate party with whom the State must negotiate. CSEA remained the exclusive representative responsible for administering the existing collective bargaining agreement until 7/1/81.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2044 (6/4/81): The State filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking a determination as to whether the composition of the State Employees Retirement Commission (SERC) and the Investment Advisory Council (IAC) were mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Labor Board found both were mandatory subjects of bargaining.
University of Connecticut, decision No. 1935 (9/16/80): The Union filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking clarification of what part-time faculty members were considered employees under the Act. The Labor Board discussed and applied a formula for determining such status.
PROHIBITED PRACTICE COMPLAINTS – EMPLOYERS
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (a) Employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 5-271 including a lockout; (2) dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization; (3) discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he has signed or filed any affidavit, petition or complaint or given any information or testimony under sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive; … (5) discriminating in regard to hiring or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization;
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 4101 (11/21/05): The Union alleged the State violated the Act when it discriminated against Union activists and by making unilateral changes in conditions of employment. The Labor Board found the Union successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: 1- the employees engaged in protected, concerted activities; 2- the employer had knowledge of those activities; and 3- the employer harbored anti-union animus. However, the Labor Board further found that the State had successfully established an affirmative defense in regard to all but one claim. In regard to the Union’s alleged unilateral change complaint, the Labor Board found the State violated the Act when it unilaterally reduced longevity payments, work schedules, and eliminated vacation bonus days. The Labor Board ordered the State to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to the Union.
State of Connecticut Judicial Dept., Decision No. 4097 (10/28/05): The Union alleged the State violated the Act when it discriminated and retaliated against Union activists. The Labor Board found the Union successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: 1- the employees engaged in protected, concerted activities; 2- the employer had knowledge of those activities; and 3- the employer harbored anti-union animus. The Labor Board further found the State failed to establish an affirmative defense.
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 3817 (4/10/01): The Union alleged that a union steward was threatened by a superior officer for his union activities. The testimony from the steward and the major was contradictory, and the Labor Board found the State’s witness more credible. As a result, there was no reliable evidence that any threats were made, and the Labor Board dismissed the complaint.
Board of Trustees for Connecticut State University System, Decision No. 3814 (3/19/01): A part-time faculty member was not re-appointed to her position. The Union alleged that her non-renewal was in response to her advocacy on behalf of the part-time employees in the bargaining unit. The Labor Board found that although there was tension and perhaps some personal animus between the full and part time faculty, the Union failed to show that the failure to reappoint was not due to anti-union animus.
University of Connecticut, Decision No. 3748 (1/27/00): The Union alleged that the University harassed, discriminated against and ultimately terminated a bargaining unit member in retaliation for the exercise of her protected right to union representation to resolve a workplace dispute with her supervisor. The University claimed that it did not renew the employee’s annual contract for legitimate programmatic reasons. The Labor Board concluded that there was no evidence of anti-union animus and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services, Decision No. 3652 (1/13/99): The parties entered negotiations regarding modifications to an existing flextime agreement which permitted four-day work weeks. However, when the State was unsuccessful in convincing the Union to modify the agreement, it began to deny flextime requests. The Labor Board concluded that this action was taken to retaliate against the Union because of its bargaining position regarding modifications to the flextime agreement.
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 3631 (10/16/98): An inmate alerted the Department of Correction that a particular Correction Officer was rumored to be carrying contraband into the facility. After roll call, the employee was escorted by two senior officers to a room where he was asked to submit to a frisk search of his person and his belongings. The employee’s request for a union representative was denied. The Labor Board found under the specific facts of this case that the search in question constituted an investigatory interview and therefore the employee was entitled to union representation upon request. Board Member Grebey dissented on the grounds that the search was not a "Weingarten-type" investigatory interview, and also expressed concern regarding the unique context and time-sensitive nature of the incident in question (to prevent illegal contraband from entering a correction facility).
State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3592 (4/20/98): The Union and five individual complainants alleged that the Employer had retaliated and discriminated against them by engaging in a variety of actions. While the Labor Board found evidence of personal animus between certain supervisors and the complainants, there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the complaint was dismissed. [Appeal dismissed, Amadeo et al. v. State Board of Labor Relations et al., CV98-492624 (J.D. New Britain, 7/21/99, Hartmere, J.): In consolidated cases (Decision Nos. 3592, 3335) the Plaintiffs, individual complainants in the Board proceeding, claimed on appeal that the Labor Board erred in dismissing their complaints against their Union and the University of Connecticut Health Center. First, the Plaintiffs argued that the Labor Board applied the wrong legal standard to determine that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Next, the Plaintiffs asserted that the record did not support the Labor Board’s conclusion that the contract had not been repudiation by the Health Center. Finally, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Health Center illegally destroyed documents and the Labor Board erred by finding to the contrary. The court determined that substantial evidence on the record supported the Labor Board’s conclusions regarding the allegations against the Health Center. The court further concluded that the Labor Board applied the correct legal standard to assess the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation.]
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 3559 (12/15/97): The Union alleged that the Employer violated the Act by limiting the representational rights of an employee during an investigatory interview. Although a Union Steward was present, the Steward believed she was "in over her head" and she attempted to reach other representatives. The interview commenced with her and a Chief Steward present on behalf of the employee. The Labor Board dismissed the complaint, finding that no rights to which either the employee or the Union were entitled were denied.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3500 (4/29/97): Union alleged that State had violated individual’s Weingarten rights by designating an individual to serve as steward who was not authorized as a Union steward. The Labor Board dismissed finding that the employee had not requested a steward and that the meeting was not investigatory.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 2866-A (4/30/92): The Union alleged the State violated the Act by terminating an employee in retaliation for engaging in protected, concerted activities. The Labor Board found the Union failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 2902 (3/22/91): The Union alleged the State violated the Act by denying an employee union representation at an investigative interview which the employee had a reasonable reason to believe would affect his job security. The Labor Board found the State violated the Act when it deprived the employee of Union representation in violation of Section 5-272 (a) (1) of the Act.
State of Connecticut, Southbury Training School, Decision No. 2834 (8/3/90): The Complainant alleged the State violated the Act when it dismissed the Complainant because of his union activities. The Labor Board found that the evidence failed to establish the Complainant was engaged in protected, concerted activity and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOE, DMH, & DOC), Decision No. 2786 (3/22/90): The Union alleged the State directly dealt with individual employees and unilaterally changed a condition of employment when it hired employees at a step higher than step one of the salary schedule. The Labor Board found the Union failed to establish a past practice and that it was actually the practice of the State to, in certain circumstances, compensate new hires at a rate above step one of the salary schedule. The Labor Board found no violation and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (Vera McGregor), Decision No. 2638 (5/10/88): The Complainant alleged that the State terminated her employment in violation of the Act and the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Labor Board found that the Complainant failed to establish neither that she was terminated in violation of the Act nor that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 2582 (9/11/87): The Union alleged the State restrained and coerced employees requesting Union representation and refusing to allow Union representatives attendance at interrogation sessions. The Labor Board found the State deprived employees of their statutory rights where the State required the Union representative to remain silent throughout investigatory interviews. The Labor Board further found that the State deprived employees of their statutory rights where the State selected the employee’s representative where two or more representatives were present and available.
State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision No. 2457 (4/11/86): Union alleged the State violated the Act by ordering union officials to disclose the content of conversations between such officials and members of the bargaining unit conducted in confidence for the purpose of pursuing an objective which is the proper subject of such representation. The Labor Board stated: “The policies of the Act require that a privilege be accorded to union officers not to disclose to their employers communications given to such officers in confidence by bargaining unit members in the pursuit of some objective which is a proper subject of union representation. The privilege given by implication of State law overrides the union officer’s duty as an employee to make disclosure to his employer in the ordinary case.” The Labor Board found the State violated §5-272(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision No. 2408 (6/21/85): The Union alleged the State negotiated directly with grievants in order to settle grievances. The Labor Board found: “an employer may not negotiate with an individual grievant the settlement of a grievance filed through the grievant’s Union and may not through such individual negotiations effect a settlement of the grievance.”
State of Connecticut, Dept. of Human Resources, Decision No. 2368 (3/8/85): The Union alleged the State negotiated directly with two employees regarding overtime payment. The Labor Board found: “once an exclusive bargaining agent has been chosen, an employer must bargain through that agent concerning wages, hours and conditions of employment. The employer may not circumvent the bargaining agent and negotiate directly with the individual employee.”
State of Connecticut (DPUC), Decision No. 2295 (3/26/84): The Union alleged the State created a new job title and specification within a job series and purposefully placed the new job title within another bargaining unit in order to reduce the size of the P-4 bargaining unit. The Labor Board found no evidence of animus and dismissed the complaint.
Dept. of Human Resources, State of Connecticut (Cianci), Decision No. 2201 (4/26/83): The Complainant alleged the State and Union conspired to secure her dismissal in violation of the Act. The Labor Board found that the Complainant had failed to establish either that she was terminated in violation of the Act or that the Union had inadequately represented her.
State Dept. of Education, Decision No. 2165 (11/23/82): The Union alleged the State refused to allow two members Union representation at meetings concerning non-renewal of their employment contracts. The Labor Board found the State deprived the employees of their statutory rights when the State: required Union representatives to remain silent throughout the meeting; required Union representatives to remain silent until after the employer finished questioning the employee; and required the Union representative to channel their questions through the employee. The Labor Board also found “the union representative has no right and may not either through unduly provocative questions or the tone and manner of his/her conduct, transform the meeting into a purely adversarial confrontation between the union representative and the employer.”
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 1871 (3/27/80): The Union alleged that the State withheld two days worth of Union dues in an effort to break the Union or strangle its operations. The Labor Board found that the withholding of union dues and agency fee payments by an employer does not constitute interference with the existence and administration of a labor organization if the employer’s conduct results from a good faith belief that the contract does not require such payments and if their withholding is not motivated by a purpose to cause such interference and dismissed the complaint.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (a) Employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (4) refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an employee organization which has been designated in accordance with the provisions of said sections as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit; including but not limited to refusing to discuss grievances with such exclusive representative;
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (c) For the purposes of sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer or his designated representatives and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times, including meetings appropriately related to the budget-making process, and bargain in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other conditions of employment, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation shall not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (d) Nothing herein shall diminish the authority and power of the Employees’ Review Board, the Department of Administrative Services or any state agency established by statute, charter or special act to establish, conduct and grade merit examinations and to rate candidates in order of their relative excellence from which appointments or promotions may be made to positions in the competitive division of the classified service of the state served by the Department of Administrative Services. The establishment, conduct and grading of merit examinations, the rating of candidates and the establishment of lists from such examinations and the appointments from such lists shall not be subject to collective bargaining.
State of Connecticut Department of Correction, Decision No. 3847 (10/25/01): The Union alleged that the State had failed to abide by the Board’s decision in State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2852 (1987) by not giving proper retirement credit to a bargaining unit member. The Labor Board concluded that although the order intended to grant such pension credit, it was legally impossible to do so based on the rules of the Office of the State Comptroller governing pension benefits. The Labor Board determined that the State did not commit a prohibited practice due to the legal impossibility of complying with the original Board order.
State of Connecticut, Department of Labor, Decision No. 3660 (2/16/99): The Union and the State were parties to an agreement which provided that employees could smoke in a temporary indoor lounge until a new indoor smoking area was identified and approved by the Union. Three years later, the Commissioner unilaterally banned all indoor smoking at the facility. The Labor Board found that the Union abandoned its claim that the State's alleged breach of the "smoking agreement" violated its duty to bargain in good faith, because the record was silent as to the circumstances surrounding the formation of the agreement and whether it arose as a result of a grievance or prohibited practice settlement or an agreement in lieu of a formal complaint.
State of Connecticut, Dept. Of Social Services, Decision No. 3573 (2/18/98): A grievance regarding employee reclassification was settled when the Employer agreed to "put forward" the paperwork to the appropriate administrative office and did in fact do so. The administrative office denied the reclassification. The Labor Board dismissed the Union's complaint on the grounds that the Employer did what it promised, i.e. put forward paperwork. However, the Labor Board cautioned that parties should be more careful regarding the terms of their settlements to avoid similar problems in the future.
State of CT, Dept. Of Administrative Services, Decision No. 3514 (6/11/97): The settlement agreement required the State to reemploy an Agency Police Officer if his application for a disability retirement was rejected. The application was rejected, but the State did not return the officer to work on the grounds that he was physically unable to perform the job. The Labor Board rejected the State's position, concluding that the settlement agreement contained no "conditions precedent" to the officer's return to work except for failing to obtain disability retirement.
State of Connecticut (Dickens), Decision No. 3372 (3/19/96): Individual alleged that State had failed to abide by the terms of an arbitration award that reinstated employee and ordered other remedies. Labor Board found that the State had not fully complied with the arbitration award and ordered certain specific action to be taken by State. [Appeal sustained, Connecticut Department of Administrative Services v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations et al., CV96-560360 (J.D. Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, 7/18/97, McWeeny, J.): An arbitrator ordered an employee reinstated to her position with back pay. The parties were unable to agree on how to implement various elements of the award, and the issue was presented to the Labor Board on the Union's complaint that the Employer was refusing to comply with a valid arbitration award (Decision No. 3372). At issue on appeal was the Labor Board's determination that the Employer should not have withheld from the back pay award an amount equal to the amount that the employee had been overpaid in unemployment compensation. The court found that the Labor Board's decision contravened public policy and Section 31-257 of the General Statutes requiring repayment of unemployment compensation when retroactive back pay for the same time period is received.]
State of Connecticut (DEP), Decision No. 3355 (1/17/96): Union alleged that State failed to comply with a grievance settlement agreement concerning the discharge of an employee. Labor Board dismissed, finding that the settlement agreement did not preclude former supervisor from answering questions concerning the employee's performance when asked by potential future employer.
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 3072 (1/25/93): The Union alleged that the State breached a grievance settlement by closing a smoking room. The decision to close the smoking room was driven by educational policy and therefore a nonmandatory subject of bargaining. The Labor Board found that the State must provide notice of its proposed termination of a settlement agreement pertaining to a permissive subject of bargaining at the time of or during negotiations for a successor contract and that such termination was not effective until the Legislature ratified the successor agreement.
State of Connecticut (NP-2 Unit), Decision No. 3064 (1/5/93): The Union alleged the State failed to comply with an arbitration award directing the State to properly deduct dues and provide membership information to the Union. The Labor Board found the State violated the Act and awarded the Union interest and attorneys’ fees in addition to ordering the State to comply with the award.
State of Connecticut (WCSU), Decision No. 3020 (6/30/92): The Union alleged the State failed to comply with a grievance settlement. The Labor Board found that a grievance settlement which supersedes a provision in the general statutes or agency regulation is not valid unless approved by the Legislature. The Labor Board further found the settlement in question superseded §5-245 in that it granted the grievant overtime benefits to which he was not legally entitled and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DMR), Decision No. 2942 (9/13/91): The Union alleged the State violated a stipulated agreement when it released information about an employee to a subsequent employer. The Labor Board found that the employee had signed a release at the behest of her subsequent employer and that said release authorized the State to release information regardless of any agreement to the contrary.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2913 (4/30/91): The Union alleged the State violated a side agreement when it failed to permit off duty usage of State vehicles by DEP conservation officers. The Labor Board found a failure to abide by a side agreement reached during contract negotiations constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith, but that the Deputy Commissioner who negotiated for the State had no authority to negotiate this issue.
State of Connecticut (DAS), Decision No. 2640 (5/23/88): The Union alleged the State violated the act when a reclassification panel verbally decided to remove certain duties and the written decision of the panel did not remove any duties. The Labor Board dismissed the complaint, finding the Union had failed to meet its burden of proof.
State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision No. 2664 (8/30/88): The Union alleged the State failed to abide by a grievance settlement when it refused to honor the Step Two hearing officer’s decision to make the grievant whole. Specifically, the Union alleged the grievant was entitled to payment for overtime he would have received but for the suspension. The Labor Board found the State had violated the settlement and ordered the grievant be made whole with interest for overtime he lost as a result of his suspension.
State of Connecticut, Dept. of Human Resources, Decision No. 2524 (10/14/86): The Union alleged the State failed to abide by a grievance settlement when it did not remove complex cases from the grievant’s job responsibilities. The Labor Board found the State had failed to abide by the agreement and therefore violated the statute.
State of Connecticut Judicial Department, Decision No. 2428 (7/31/85): The Union alleged the State violated a grievance settlement agreement concerning the reassignment of certain courtroom responsibilities. The Labor Board found the State had violated the agreement.
State of Connecticut (DAS), Decision No. 2152 (8/19/82): The Union alleged the State failed to comply with an arbitration award when it failed to implement the award as to other similarly situated employees. The Labor Board found that the arbitration award did not concern a class grievance and did not direct or bind the State to apply the ordered remedy to anyone other than the grievant and dismissed the complaint.
University of Connecticut Board of Trustees, Decision No. 2101 (11/19/81): The Union alleged that the State failed to comply with both a prohibited practice and grievance settlement when it failed to terminate employees who refused to pay agency service fees. The Labor Board ordered the State to comply with the settlement.
State of Connecticut (DOT), Decision No. 2072 (7/24/81): The Union alleged the State violated the Act when it refused to comply with the Step III grievance hearing officer’s decision that the grievant should be reclassified. The Labor Board found that the State’s actions violated the Act and ordered the State to reclassify the grievant in accordance with the Step III hearing officer’s decision.
State of Connecticut (DCYS), Decision No. 1870 (3/25/80): The Union alleged that the State failed to comply with a settlement agreement regarding the level of discipline to be imposed for a particular individual. Said agreement was reached prior to the imposition of any discipline and in lieu of any grievance which may have been filed on the individual’s behalf. The Labor Board found that the failure to comply with such a settlement was a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 3014-B, (8/27/93): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed a condition of employment by closing the guard towers at a prison and refused to negotiate prior to the closing or to negotiate the impact of the closing. The Labor Board found that the closing of the guard towers was within the scope of managerial discretion and not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Labor Board also found that the closing had no substantial impact upon the health and safety of employees and therefore did not require negotiation over any secondary effects. The complaint was dismissed.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2859 (10/30/90): The Union alleged that the State unilaterally changed the conditions of employment when it unilaterally changed work rules concerning overtime project assignments. The Labor Board found that “the subject of restrictions on outside employment concerns a term or condition of employment and a mandatory subject of bargaining” and that “the State’s unilateral implementation of the work rules concerning outside employment was a departure from past practice and constituted a violation of the State’s duty to bargain.”
State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision No. 2466 (3/21/86): The Union alleged that the State unilaterally changed the conditions of employment when it converted its reporting system from a punch card to the computer. In the alternative, the Union alleged the State had an obligation to negotiate the secondary impacts of such a change. The Labor Board found that the conversion of the reporting system was not a mandatory subject of bargaining in that it fell within the scope of managerial discretion. The Labor Board further found that the secondary effects of this conversion did not produce substantial changes in either the workload or safety of bargaining unit members and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DIM), Decision No. 2371 (3/12/85): The Union alleged that the State violated the Act when it refused to negotiate the secondary impact of a new system of promotions by negotiating the form of the examination. The Labor Board dismissed the complaint citing the prohibition found in §5-272 (d) of the Act.
State of Connecticut (Executive Branch), Decision No. 2052 (6/17/81): The Union alleged the State unilaterally implemented the new classifications outlined in policy 8683c. The Labor Board found that the very specific language in the management rights clause allowed the State to make such changes absent negotiation. The Labor Board further found that the State had a duty to negotiate the impact of the implementation as these changes substantially affected wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. The Labor Board concluded the State had fulfilled its obligation in this regard and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOT), Decision No. 3879 (7/18/02): The DOT refused to provide disciplinary fact finding reports and letters to the Union for bargaining unit members who had waived their right to union representation in the disciplinary process. The fact that the employees had waived union representation did not affect the relevancy of the information because the Union has an interest in monitoring the fairness of the disciplinary system for all employees.
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 3827 (6/4/01): A bargaining unit member was terminated for gross neglect of duty, based on videotape evidence. The Union made multiple requests for copies of the tapes during the subsequent grievance proceedings, but the employer refused to provide them. The employer offered the Union an unlimited opportunity to view the tapes, but refused to provide copies due to substantial security concerns. The Labor Board found the employer’s justification and attempts to accommodate the Union reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Decision 3673 (3/24/99): The Union requested certain information from the State related to a sergeant’s examination that had been administered and then suspended when certain candidates were thought to have had prior access to the test questions. The Union represented one of the candidates who was questioned during the subsequent internal affairs investigation. The State refused to provide certain of the test information, claiming exemption under the FOIA and the State Personnel Act. The State also failed to provide a complete copy of the internal affairs investigation report. The investigation concluded and no disciplinary action was taken against the employee. The Labor Board found that no presumption of relevance attached to information requested in connection with the investigation itself, which did not result in discipline, and that the Union failed to establish the relevance of the information to the Union’s duty to police or administer the contract. The fact that the Union represented the employee in a Weingarten-type investigatory interview was insufficient, without more, to establish relevance. In addition, the Labor Board concluded that the Union had never actually made a request for the IA report.
State of Connecticut (Division of Special Revenue), Decision No. 3364 (2/9/96):
Union alleged that State unlawfully privatized the "Off-Track Betting" operation and failed to provide relevant information to the Union concerning the sale and privatization of that operation. Labor Board dismissed finding that collective bargaining agreement allowed the State's action of selling this part of the State's operation. The Labor Board also noted that the State made a convincing argument that this type of action should be viewed differently from a subcontracting situation, but declined to go further in its analysis as it had decided the case on contractual grounds. Also Labor Board found that the State had not refused to provide relevant information to the Union regarding the sale of OTB.
State of Connecticut (Division of Criminal Justice), Decision No. 2793 (4/20/90): The Union alleged the State failed to supply information which the Union had requested in relation to contract negotiations. The Labor Board found the State in violation of the Act and stated in part: “Information which must be supplied includes that which is presumptively relevant because it concerns the core of the employer-employee relationship and that which is proven to be relevant in a particular context. If information is presumptively relevant, a party making a request need not show its precise relevance unless effective rebuttal comes forth. Even where information is relevant, a party to whom the request is made may sometimes provide adequate reasons why it cannot in good faith supply the information. Information linking employee names with their wages, benefits and other information at the core of employer-employee relationship is presumptively appropriate and must be supplied by an employer.”
Connecticut State University, Decision No. 2759 (9/14/89): The Union alleged the employer had refused to furnish information needed to evaluate the proper disposition of a promotion grievance. The Labor Board found that the contract did not allow for the filing of grievances regarding discretionary decisions to deny promotions and that the Union had failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested information and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2155 (9/14/82): The Union alleged the State refused to supply information the Union requested in regard to a promotional exam for a position outside of the bargaining unit. The Labor Board found that the Union failed to establish a prima facie case that the State had violated its duty to bargain by refusing to provide information regarding promotion to positions outside of the bargaining unit.
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 4087 (9/27/05): The Union alleged the State repudiated the collective bargaining agreement when it charged sick leave to certain bargaining unit members when the Governor instructed non-essential employees not to report to work due to adverse weather conditions. The Labor Board found that the Union had failed to establish repudiation in that the Union failed to show the State: 1-had taken an action based on an interpretation of the contract asserted in subjective bad faith; 2- taken an action based on an interpretation of the contract which was frivolous or implausible; or 3- that the State conceded to the Union’s interpretation of the contract but sought to defend its action on a collateral ground. The Labor Board dismissed the Union’s complaint.
State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services, Decision No. 3834 (7/17/01): The Union alleged that the State had repudiated two agreements regarding flex time scheduling. With regard to the first complaint, the agreement in question was superseded by a later agreement, and therefore no longer in effect. As for the second agreement, the Labor Board found that the subsequent collective bargaining agreement essentially rendered the earlier agreement a nullity, because its terms rendered the prior agreement unworkable and outdated.
State of Connecticut, Dept. Of Public Safety, Decision No. 3575 (2/19/98): The Employer agreed to a $1,500,000 consent judgment regarding a wage and hour complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Labor which required the Employer to reimburse employees for back overtime wages. Thereafter, the Employer unilaterally eliminated a $100 stipend paid to bargaining unit employees who handled canines. An arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union's interpretation of the contract provision regarding payments to the dog handlers. The Employer argued that the DOL judgment imposed a financial hardship, requiring it to eliminate the stipend. The Labor Board found the Employer's asserted interpretation of the relevant provision implausible and further found that the financial hardship imposed by the judgment was unrelated to the stipend, rendering the Employer's collateral defense inapplicable.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3427 (8/6/96): Two Unions filed complaints alleging that the State had repudiated collective bargaining agreements and otherwise bargained in bad faith by failing to pay annual increments and/or lump sum payments to employees in June, 1994. The Labor Board found that the collective bargaining agreements expired on June 30, 1994 and that, although annual increment and lump sum payments were historically paid starting with the pay period which included July 1, the benefits did not "vest" until July 1, after the expiration of the contracts. Therefore, the State did not repudiate the contracts by not making the payments in June 1994. Further, the Board found that lump sum payments are not part of an employee's "salary" as such term is used in Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 5-278a and were not "carried over" after the expiration of the contract under that statutory section. [Appeal dismissed, Connecticut State Employees Association v. State Board of Labor Relations et al., CV96-564307 (J.D. Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, 7/18/97, McWeeny, J.): The Labor Board rejected the Union's claim that annual lump sum payments constituted a part of "salary" and were thus required to be paid after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 5-278a (Decision No. 3427). The court agreed with the Labor Board's application of traditional rules of statutory construction and dismissed the appeal.]
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3351 (12/13/95): Union alleged that the State unilaterally changed a term of employment and repudiated a contract when it changed on-call payment for certain employees in the Division of Special Revenue. Labor Board dismissed finding that the stipulated agreement relied upon by the Union terminated in 1992 and that there was no unlawful change because the contract allowed the employer's actions.
State of Connecticut (Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, State College, State Technical College), Decision No. 2474 (4/10/86): The Union alleged the State repudiated and unilaterally changed the conditions of employment when it changed the level of benefits in force under the insurance provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board found that the Union failed to meet its burden of proof and that the question of whether the State breached the agreement is one over which the Labor Board has no jurisdiction.
State of Connecticut, UConn Medical Center, Decisin No. 4002 (9/23/04): Although the Union established that the work of the laid off employees was being performed by non-bargaining unit personnel, the transfer of the work was consistent with the customary practice of the parties. Further, the Labor Board noted that the collective bargaining agreement between the parties unequivocally allowed subcontracting.
State of Connecticut (Division of State Police), Decision No. 3412 (6/27/96): The Union alleged that the State subcontracted clerical bargaining unit work to retired, re-employed State Troopers. The Labor Board found that the State had not violated the Act because the collective bargaining agreement gave the State the right to subcontract bargaining unit work as long as no bargaining unit members were laid off as a direct result of the subcontracting. Here, no bargaining unit employees were laid off as a direct consequence of the subcontracting to the Troopers and therefore, no violation occurred.
State of Connecticut (Division of Special Revenue), Decision No. 3364 (2/9/96): The Union alleged that State unlawfully privatized the "Off-Track Betting" operation and failed to provide relevant information to the Union concerning the sale and privatization of that operation. Labor Board dismissed finding that collective bargaining agreement allowed the State's action of selling this part of the State's operation. The Labor Board also noted that the State made a convincing argument that this type of action should be viewed differently from a subcontracting situation, but declined to go further in its analysis as it had decided the case on contractual grounds. Also Labor Board found that the State had not refused to provide relevant information to the Union regarding the sale of OTB.
Board of Trustees, CSU, Decision No. 2948 (9/30/91): The Union alleged that the State subcontracted bargaining unit work to administrative personnel. The Labor Board found the work had historically been shared and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, (OLR, DAS, DPW), Decision No. 2291 (3/20/84): The Union alleged that the State subcontracted bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit part-time employees and independent contractors. The Labor Board found that the work in question had historically been performed by non-bargaining unit employees and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 4083 (9/12/05): The Union alleged that the DOC had unilaterally changed a past practice by refusing to provide compensatory time to essential employees working during weather related emergency closings. The Labor Board found that the Union failed to establish an existing fixed practice and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 4084 (9/13/05): The Union alleged that the DOC had unilaterally altered a past practice of allowing employees the opportunity to be paid overtime for required training. The Labor Board found that the Union failed to establish a past practice in a condition of employment that was a mandatory subject of bargaining and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 3890 (12/16/02): The Union alleged that the DOC had unilaterally altered a longstanding past practice of not using inmate testimony in grievance proceedings. The Labor Board found that the decision to use inmate testimony was not a mandatory subject of bargaining and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, Decision No. 3806 (1/29/01): The Union alleged that the employer violated the SERA by unilaterally implementing a dress code. The State defended on two grounds. First, the State claimed that the practice must be unit-wide in order to be binding, relying on prior decisions of the Labor Board. In this case, however, the Labor Board concluded that the principle should not apply to multi-agency bargaining units where there was a history of differing practices at different locations. In such cases, a union could establish a prima facie case when it could show a definite and fixed practice at one location. The State also claimed that the Union waived its right to bargain over the dress code because of its insistence on the right of employees to wear clothing with slogans and messages. The Labor Board did not address whether employees had such a right, finding instead that the State was obligated to negotiate to impasse over the dress code. The State’s abandonment of negotiations prior to impasse and unilateral implementation of the dress code constituted a prohibited practice, and the Labor Board issued an appropriate remedy.
Southern Connecticut State University, Decision No. 3703 (6/17/99): The Complainant alleged that the employer violated the Act when it adopted a policy regarding summer teaching assignments for faculty members. The Labor Board concluded that the employer’s actions were permitted by the contract and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corp., Decision No. 3693 (5/14/99): The Union alleged that the employer had unilaterally imposed new working conditions by requiring certain licensing requirements for employees of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC). The Labor Board found that the licensing requirements were imposed by the Division of Special Revenue (DSR) as the regulatory agency of CLC, and not by the employer. The fact that the CLC was once part of the DSR was irrelevant, since the CLC had subsequently been established as a separate employer by special act.
State of Connecticut, Department of Labor, Decision No. 3660 (2/16/99): The State unilaterally banned all indoor smoking at the main Department of Labor facility. The Labor Board concluded that smoking inside public buildings was a permissive subject of bargaining, based on the incontrovertible evidence that cigarette smoke is dangerous and the public policy against smoking in public buildings as expressed by Sections 1-21b and 31-40q of the General Statutes. The Labor Board expressly did not decide whether a total on-duty smoking ban for Department employees would constitute a mandatory subject of bargaining.
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 3632 (10/28/98): For thirty years, bargaining unit members had been permitted to utilize a state-owned firing range for off-duty target practice. Following an off-duty injury at the range, the State unilaterally ceased allowing such off-duty use. The Labor Board dismissed the complaint, first finding that the Union waived its right to bargain by knowing about the change for four years before filing a failure to bargain charge. In addition, the Labor Board concluded that the use of the firing range was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, following Town of Windsor, Decision No. 3435 (1996), because it did not intimately or directly relate to employment and the State had a strong interest in controlling the private use of its property.
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 3554 (11/26/97): The Union alleged that the Employer unilaterally implemented a change in working conditions by prohibiting beards and goatees for employees assigned to a Correctional Emergency Response Team. The Labor Board dismissed, finding that the Employer had the managerial right for safety reasons to restrict the wearing of facial hair for those employees required to wear certain face masks. The Board also found that the policy had no significant secondary impact upon the terms or conditions of employment.
State of Connecticut (CHRO), Decision No. 3467 (1/31/97): Union alleged that State unilaterally changed existing conditions of employment by using new evaluation standards, changing the uniformity of work standards and failing to address more stringent investigatory procedures resulting in increased workload. The Labor Board dismissed the complaint finding that the Union failed to present evidence that the State imposed new evaluation standards or imposed more stringent investigatory procedures. The Labor Board also dismissed the allegation concerning uniformity of work standards finding that there was no evidence that a fixed past practice had been changed. [Appeal dismissed, Local 2663, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations and State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, CV97-568932 (J.D. Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, 2/19/98, McWeeny, J.), aff'd. per curiam, 53 Conn. App. 902 (1999): The Labor Board had dismissed the Union's claim that the Employer had unilaterally implemented changes to the performance standards used to evaluate employees (Decision No. 3467). The Labor Board concluded that the Union had failed to establish a fixed practice and a departure from that practice. The court upheld the Board's decision.]
State of Connecticut and CEUI (Amadeo, et. al.), Decision No. 3335 (9/19/95): Individuals alleged that University had refused to bargain in good faith by unilaterally changing work schedules of the individuals and further withheld information from Complainants and their Union and destroyed relevant information. Labor Board found that the individuals failed to rebut Employer's contention that the change in work schedule was allowed by the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Further, the complainants failed to prove that the Union made a request for the documents and failed to show that the destruction of documents was done with a motive to frustrate the Complainant's presentation of their case. Finally, Labor Board found that the complaint was not barred by laches. [Appeal dismissed, Amadeo et al. v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations et al., CV98-492618 (J.D. New Britain, 7/21/99, Hartmere, J.)].
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 3170 (12/30/93): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the attendance policy. The Labor Board stated: “reasonable work rules and procedures designed to enforce existing rules or conditions of employment do not constitute mandatory subjects of bargaining unless the work rules alter the conditions of employment which they are designed to enforce.” The Labor Board concluded the policy in question was reasonable and allowed by the management rights clause and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DMR), Decision No. 3107 (5/11/93): The Union alleged the State unilaterally change a past practice when it refused to release Union delegates to represent members at Workers Compensation hearings. The Labor Board found that the State had violated the Act during the term of the 1986-1989 collective bargaining agreement, but that such practice was extinguished by contract language in the 1989-1992 collective bargaining agreement.
Board of Trustees for State Technical Colleges, Decision No. 2997 (3/31/92): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed a long standing practice concerning the charging of time whenever the employer declared a snow day. The Labor Board found the employer violated the Act when it unilaterally required employees to charge vacation, sick, or personal time when classes were cancelled due to inclement weather.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 3016 (6/9/92): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the policy of hiring new employees at step one of the salary schedule. The Labor Board found the Union had met its burden of proof and found the State in violation of the Act.
State of Connecticut (DAS), Decision No. 2833 (8/3/90): The Union alleged the State unilaterally increased the amount of teacher-student contact time at a correctional facility. After examining the evidence regarding the amount of teacher-student contact time at other agency facilities, the Labor Board found the Union had failed to establish a practice and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision No. 2761 (9/12/89): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the practice of allowing employees to select vacation, personal, and compensatory days off without restriction. The Labor Board found the Union failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 2729 (4/28/89): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the practice of allowing employees at a particular correctional facility to change their clothes at the beginning of their shifts. The Labor Board found that the Union had failed to establish a practice throughout DOC and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DCYS), Decision No. 2574 (7/29/87): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the practice of allowing employees of a particular unit to work at home. The Labor Board found that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement to resolve the dispute and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2460 (2/11/86): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed an existing condition of employment when it prohibited reasonable use of state cars for personal business. The Labor Board found that the limited personal use of an employer owned vehicle by employees while the employees were on-call for emergency work assignments concerned a mandatory subject of bargaining and found the State was in violation of the Act.
State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision No. 2419 (7/9/85): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed an existing condition of employment when it issued a directive limiting the number of years a trooper could remain in a resident trooper position. The Labor Board found the term limitation on the assignment of resident state trooper concerned a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the State violated the Act.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2237 (9/21/83): Complainants and the Union alleged the State unilaterally changed a practice by prohibiting employees from accepting financial remuneration for work that is customarily within the duties for which they receive compensation in their regular position. The Labor Board stated: “The subject of restrictions on outside employment concerns a term or condition of employment and a mandatory subject of bargaining.” However, the Labor Board found that the Union failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (DCYS), Decision No. 2160 (10/26/82): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the method of reimbursement to employees for use of their personally owned vehicles by denying payment for a portion of their mileage. The Labor Board found that the employer’s failure to pay portal to portal mileage without negotiation was a violation of the Act.
State of Connecticut (DAS), Decision No. 2085 (9/4/81): The Union alleged the State unilaterally increased the salary of incumbent bargaining unit members in a specific job title without prior negotiations. The State argued the Union waived its right to bargain over the change by failing to request negotiations for approximately three months. The Labor Board found the Union had not waived its right to bargain and that the State had violated the Act.
State of Connecticut (State Police), Decision No. 1962 (11/25/80): The Complainant and Union alleged the State unilaterally altered the conditions of employment when it refused to extend a promotion eligibility list. The Labor Board found that the “questions of duration of such lists and of the extension of their duration is excluded from collective bargaining by section 5-272 (d) of the Act.” and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (NP-5), Decision No. 1926 (7/31/80): The Union alleged the State unilaterally removed police powers from incumbents in a particular job title and did not negotiate the change. The Labor Board found “the granting or withdrawal of police powers is a decision committed to management’s sole discretion, at least if the decision is based upon a good faith belief that police powers are not required to perform the duties assigned to a particular job classification.” Because the removal of police powers was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, the Labor Board dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (NP-3 Unit), Decision No. 1921 (7/29/80): The Union alleged the State unilaterally implemented a new policy regarding attendance and tardiness in violation of the Act. The Labor Board found that some aspects of the policy were a restatement of existing practices and others were permitted by managerial prerogative and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 1878 (4/10/80): The Union alleged the State unilaterally changed the qualifications necessary to be eligible to fill a position vacancy. The Labor Board found the Union failed to establish any change in past practice and that the required qualifications were consistent with the job description, and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3548 (11/10/97): The Employer alleged that the Union had failed to bargain in good faith by introducing certain contract proposals that the Employer believed fell outside the scope of the reopener provision. The Labor Board found that there was a legitimate dispute regarding the meaning of the reopener clause, which the Employer could raise as an arbitrability issue. The mere fact that there was a difference of opinion regarding the reopener did not establish that the Union had bargained in bad faith by making the proposals.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3521 (7/29/97): The Union alleged that the Employer's failure to submit economic offers until binding interest arbitration constituted bad faith bargaining. The Labor Board reviewed the totality of the parties' conduct during negotiations to conclude that the Employer did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith. Likewise, the Labor Board dismissed the Employer's cross-complaint that the Union had violated the Act by submitting modified proposals during binding arbitration.
State of Connecticut (Department of Social Services), Decision No. 3461 (12/27/96): Union alleged that State bargained in bad faith by proposing an illegal grievance settlement agreement and then terminated an employee in retaliation for Union’s rejection of proposal. Labor Board dismissed finding that the State did not bargain in bad faith by proposing a settlement agreement which was inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement and did not unlawfully terminate the employee after settlement discussions failed.
CEUI, Decision No. 2949 (9/30/91): The State alleged the Union violated the Act by refusing to agree to print side letters in the collective bargaining agreement. Due to the Union’s refusal, the State refused to pay its share of the cost of printing until the Union agreed to include those agreements. The Union filed a complaint alleging the State violated the Act by refusing to pay its’ share of the printing costs for the collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board found the parties had never negotiated over the inclusion of the side letters in the collective bargaining agreement and found the State’s refusal to pay half of the printing cost to violate the duty to bargain in good faith.
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 2947 (9/27/91): The Union alleged the employer violated the Act when it failed to pay retroactive wage increases within sixty days of the issuance of an interest arbitration award. The Labor Board found that the failure to implement an interest arbitration award within the time frames required by §5-276b(a) of the Act was a prohibited practice.
State of Connecticut (Historical Commission), Decision No. 2903 (3/25/91): The Union alleged the State refused to negotiate wages, hours, and working conditions for bargaining unit members employed as guides at Newgate prison. The State argued that although it had recognized the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for those employees, the interest arbitration award issued subsequent to recognition excluded the employees from coverage under the collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board found the State’s voluntary recognition obligated it to bargain with the Union.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2456 (1/14/86): The Unions alleged the State failed to negotiate in good faith during pension negotiations by threatening and actually seeking legislated changes in conditions of employment. The Labor Board found: “Although threats and attempts by either the State or State employee unions to seek legislated changes in conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of bargaining are not favored, they do not constitute in and of themselves bad faith bargaining.” The Labor Board further found: “The State’s agreement with the PCC to a Most Favored Nations clause did not interfere with, coerce, or restrain the bargaining rights of the CSEA units. Such a clause is distinguishable from an illegal parity clause.” The PCC Most Favored Nations clause triggered a reopener in the PCC agreement if the State and another employee organization agreed to a provision that differed from a provision in the PCC agreement. Unlike an illegal parity clause, there was no automatic incorporation of the new provision into the PCC agreement.
State of Connecticut (OLR), Decision No. 2407 (6/19/85): The Union alleged the employer violated the Act when it refused to negotiate with the Union prior to 4:30 pm. The State alleged the Union violated the Act when it failed to respond to communications seeking to bargain certain re-opener provisions and schedule such negotiations outside of normal work hours. The Labor Board stated: “The times and days for negotiating sessions is within the proper subject matter of ground rules and is a mandatory subject of bargaining. When dealing with a charge of failure to bargain in good faith based upon adamant refusal to meet at reasonable times and days, the Board views the conduct of the charged party in light of the totality of the circumstances.” The Labor Board also found that where the parties disagree, each party must provide the other with a full explanation of its position and fully discuss the problems each raises while making a sincere effort to reach a mutual accommodation. The Labor Board then ordered both parties to negotiate in good faith.
State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision No. 2367 (3/7/85): The Union alleged that the parties reached a tentative agreement after negotiation over the impact of the State closing the bachelor quarters at a correctional facility and that the State refused to abide by the agreement. The Labor Board found that the Union had failed to establish an unconditional agreement had been reached with the State. However, the Labor Board also found the State bargained in bad faith when it did not promptly inform the Union of its decision to withdraw its offer and that this failure led both sides to “engage in substantial fruitless bargaining resulting in a nugatory tentative agreement.”
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2239 (9/22/83): The Union alleged the State unilaterally implemented reductions in pension benefits while the parties were engaged in pension negotiations. In 1974, relevant provisions of the State Employees Retirement Act were ruled unconstitutional in that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by requiring male employees to work five years longer in order to earn pension benefits than similarly situated females. In 1975, the State Employees Retirement Act was amended to mandate females earn the same pension benefits as males. In 1980, the U.S. District Court declared the 1975 Act unconstitutional. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the District Court’s decision in 1981. The State adjusted pension benefits accordingly. The Labor Board found the State was required by state law to reimplement the 1975 Act “once it was no longer compelled to refrain from such implementation by the federal courts.” and under these limited circumstances, “the State’s reimplementation of the 1975 Act without prior negotiations did not constitute an illegal refusal to bargain within the meaning of the Act.”
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2240 (9/22/83): The Union alleged the State violated the Act by unilaterally breaching a mutually agreed upon ground rule for collective bargaining. The Labor Board found that the State had breached a ground rule and found a violation of the Act. Additionally, the Labor Board awarded attorneys’ fees and related costs to the Union.
State of Connecticut (Dept. of Labor Relations), Decision No. 2127 (5/19/82): The Union alleged the State refused to hear a grievance. The State argued the grievant expressed a desire to withdraw the grievance. The Labor Board found “a grievance filed through an exclusive bargaining representative may not be withdrawn by the individual grievant without the consent of the bargaining agent. The employer’s refusal to hear and decide such a grievance on its merits, over the objections of the bargaining agent, is prohibited by Section 5-272(a)(4) of the Act.”
University of Connecticut, Decision No. 1856 (2/4/80): The Union alleged the employer violated the Act when it refused to acknowledge the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for all teaching faculty working half-time or more. The Labor Board concluded that “if a union fails to include a class of faculty members in its petition or its agreement for consent election this fact creates a rebuttable presumption that a majority of members of that class do not wish representation through inclusion in the bargaining unit” and that the Union failed to rebut said presumption. Therefore, the Labor Board dismissed the complaint.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (a) Employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (6) refusing to reduce a collective bargaining agreement to writing and to sign such agreement;
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3076 (2/10/93): The Union alleged the State violated the Act when it did not include the same language or language with the same meaning reached in an agreement between the parties when drafting a memoranda of agreement for modification of the parties collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board found the State was bound to sign an agreement which used the final language exactly as it appeared in the State’s proposal to which the Union agreed.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (a) Employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (7) violating any of the rules and regulations established by the board regulating the conduct of representation elections.
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies 5-273-18 (a) During the course of a representation campaign, the following conduct may interfere with the rights of employees and may result in the setting aside of the election: (1) Threatening loss of jobs or other disadvantages by employer or union. (2) Misstating important facts by a union or an employer where the other party does not have a fair chance to reply. (3) Promising or granting promotions, pay raises, or other benefits to influence the employee’s vote by a party capable of carrying out such promises. (4) An employer firing employees to discourage or encourage union activity or a union causing them to be fired to encourage union activity. (5) Threatening physical force or violence to employees by a union or an employer to influence their votes.
State Vocational Federation of Teachers, Local 1797 and State of Connecticut, Decision No. 2060 (6/24/81): The CEA/NEA alleged the State and the incumbent Union, SVFT, violated the Act when they agreed to language in a collective bargaining agreement denying access to employee’s workplace mailboxes to competing employee organizations. The Labor Board concluded: “The role of a statutory exclusive bargaining representative entitles it to no favors and no special treatment from the employer in connection with such election campaigns. A clause in a contract between an exclusive bargaining agent and an employer which purports to extend special favor to the agent in connection with an electoral campaign is an illegal attempt to circumvent the policies of the Act.” and ordered the respondents to cease and desist from such conduct.
PROHIBITED PRACTICE COMPLAINTS - UNIONS
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (b) Employee organizations or their agents are prohibited from: (1) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in subsection (a) of section 5-271;
CEUI (Arseneault), Decision No. 2464 (3/19/86): The Complainant alleged the Union interfered with his statutory right to engage in protected activity by harassing the Complainant, filing a frivolous lawsuit against the Complainant, and expelling the Complainant from Union membership. The Labor Board found protected activity includes: the right of Union members to “criticize the honesty, competence or financial practices of union officials” and seek financial information about his or her Union pursuant to CGS 31-77. The Labor Board found CEUI violated the Act and ordered a comprehensive remedy, and stated: “the policies of the Act will be served by decertification of CEUI as NP-2 exclusive bargaining representative should it fail to comply with the cease and desist order contained herein and/or continue to engage in prohibited practices of the sort shown in this case.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (b) Employee organizations or their agents are prohibited from: (2) restraining or coercing an employer in the selection of his representative for purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances; (3) refusing to bargain collectively in good faith, with an employer, if it has been designated in accordance with the provisions of sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit;
AFSCME Council 4 (NP-4 Unit), Decision No. 3683 (4/14/99): The State and the Union entered into a "last chance" agreement regarding an employee who was terminated for drug use. The State agreed to reinstate the employee on the condition that he submit to two random drug tests in nine months. The parties further agreed that if the employee tested positive for drugs, he would be terminated with no recourse to the grievance procedure. The employee failed a drug test and was terminated. The Union filed a grievance, which was denied as non-arbitrable, and the Union subsequently moved to vacate the award, arguing that arbitration was appropriate to determine whether the testing protocol used was valid. The Labor Board concluded that the language of the settlement agreement was clear and unequivocal and the Union was precluded from challenging the termination in any forum. The Labor Board ordered the Union to reimburse the State its fees and costs incurred in defending the arbitration and motion to vacate, as well those incurred in prosecuting the prohibited practice charge.
Connecticut Employees Union Independent (NP-2 Unit), Decision No. 3446 (10/17/96): State alleged that Union bargained in bad faith by pursuing to arbitration the dismissal of two employees in violation of last chance agreements. Labor Board Found violation with regard to one employee and dismissed allegation concerning other employee.
Council 4, AFSCME, Decision No. 3939 (1/15/04): The Complainant alleged the State violated the Act concerning the reclassification of his position. After the Complainant presented his evidence, the Labor Board dismissed the complaint from the bench. The Complainant also alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by: failing to give her placement on paid administrative leave; failing to act on her request for information regarding the use of sick pool time; failing to guard the confidentiality of her medical information; and failing to send her the Union monthly newsletters. The Labor Board found the Complainant had failed to meet her burden of proof and dismissed the complaint.
Connecticut Employee Union Independent (Hendrickson), Decision No. 3812 (3/8/01): Although the Complainant believed that his disciplinary suspension and the Union’s handling of his grievances were based on his race, the Labor Board found no evidence of such discrimination on the record and dismissed the complaint.
Local 4200A, State Vocational Federation of Teachers (Mirabilio-Borer), Decision No. 3633 (10/30/98): The Complainant alleged that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to provide union representation, by refusing to process grievances or by processing them in an untimely manner, and by treating other bargaining unit members more favorably and by representing other members with interests adverse to the Complainant. The Labor Board found that the evidence demonstrated that the Union did in fact provide adequate and fair representation to the Complainant.
David Bishop and Local 1565, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Decision No. 3510 (6/5/97): The employee claimed that the Union had violated its duty of fair representation when it failed to process a grievance on the employee’s disciplinary suspension. The Labor Board concluded that the evidence failed to show that the Union had acted in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, and noted that mere negligence was insufficient to establish a violation.
State of Connecticut (Amadeo et. al.), Decision No. 3335 (9/19/95): Individuals alleged that the Union failed to adequately resolve a grievance concerning a reorganization at UConn Health Center that affected Complainants. Labor Board dismissed finding that the Union's actions were not arbitrary or in bad faith and finding that the Union had not failed to keep Complainants informed of the status of their grievances. [Appeal dismissed, Amadeo et al. v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations et al., CV98-492618 (J.D. New Britain, 7/21/99, Hartmere, J.)].
University of Connecticut AAUP, Decision No. 2714 (3/13/89): The Complainant alleged the Union opposed the interest of part-time bargaining unit members; denied pert-time bargaining unit members voting rights; barred part-time members from participation in negotiations by denying them officerships or committee memberships; and neglected communication with part-time bargaining unit members. The Labor Board found that the Complainant had failed to establish that the Union deliberately discriminated against part-time faculty and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (Vera McGregor), Decision No. 2638 (5/10/88): The Complainant alleged that the State terminated her employment in violation of the Act and the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Labor Board found that the Complainant failed to establish either that she was terminated in violation of the Act or that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation.
Connecticut State Police Union, Decision No. 2478 (4/15/86): The Complainants alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation when it filed a lawsuit attempting to invalidate a promotional list and filed such action without first obtaining the approval of the Union Executive Committee in violation of the Union’s bylaws. The Labor Board found the Complainants failed to establish any breach of the duty of fair representation and that “mere failure to follow internal union requests for approval to bring a lawsuit would not be a matter over which we have jurisdiction.”
State Vocational Federation of Teachers, Local 1797, AFT, (Kingsbury), Decision No. 2372 (3/14/85): The Complainant alleged the Union breached its duty of fair representation when the Union’s grievance and arbitration committee settled or abandoned many of the Complainant’s grievances. The Labor Board found the Complainant failed to establish the Union breached its duty and dismissed the complaint.
CSEA (Kulesik), Decision No. 2373 (3/14/85): The Complainant alleged the Union violated the Act by refusing to file a grievance on his behalf. The Labor Board found the Complainant failed to establish the Union breached its duty and dismissed the complaint.
State of Connecticut (Vasconcellos), Decision No. 2109 (1/11/82): The Complainant alleged the State violated the Act and the Union breached its duty of fair representation by its failure to process a grievance on behalf of the Complainant regarding conduct of the Complainant’s former supervisor, another bargaining unit member. The Labor Board found the Complainant failed to establish any violation of the Act and further stated: “Faced with competing claims among bargaining unit members, a union could properly take a position supporting the bargaining unit member it felt had the more meritorious claim and against the adverse claim of the other bargaining member. As long as the decision is based upon relevant considerations and not upon capricious or arbitrary factors, the decision would not run afoul of the duty of fair representation. On the other hand, if the union felt that both bargaining unit members had valid claims and could not in good faith select one bargaining unit member’s case over the other, it could process both grievances (even to arbitration) by assigning a separate union representative to each case and having each act independently of the other in representation of his respective grievant.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-272 (b) Employee organizations or their agents are prohibited from: (5) violating any of the rules and regulations established by the board regulating the conduct of representation elections;
Council #4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Decision No. 1967 (12/19/80): The incumbent union, CSEA, alleged AFSCME violated the Act when it conducted an organizational campaign utilizing former CSEA staff representatives who had signed no-compete agreements. The Labor Board found that the fact six former CSEA staff representatives improperly conspired to procure a waiver of a restrictive employment covenant did not constitute a valid basis for finding that their new employer, AFSCME, violated the Act because CSEA failed to establish that AFSCME knew of the covenant at the time of hiring or that it knowingly exploited confidential information gained by said employees in their former employment.
District 1199, Decision No. 1951 (10/20/80): The incumbent union, CEUI, alleged District 1199 violated the Act when it conducted an organizational campaign prior to the applicable window period and made false statements to bargaining unit members. The Labor Board found conducting an organizational campaign prior to a window period did not violate the Act. The Labor Board further found that statements made by District 1199 were not a violation of the Act as CEUI had failed to establish the statements were false and were made with either knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3751 (3/22/00): Section 5-278(b) of the State Employee Relations Act (SERA) provides that either house of the General Assembly may reject an interest arbitration award by a two-thirds vote only if it determines there are insufficient funds to implement the award. The Union alleged that the State should have implemented an arbitration award, despite the fact that the Senate had rejected it for lack of funds, because there were sufficient funds to implement the award. The Labor Board dismissed the complaint because the General Assembly is not an employer as defined by the SERA.[Appeal dismissed, AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 397, 391 & 1565 v. Dept. of Correction et al., CV00-501766 10/31/01 (Cohn, H.): This case involved a claim by the Union that the State Senate rejected an interest arbitration award for reasons other than "insufficient funds" and therefore the award was a binding contract by operation of law. The Labor Board concluded in Decision No. 3751 that it has no jurisdiction over the actions of the legislature and that, under the circumstances, the DOC acted in accordance with its statutory obligations. The trial court agreed, concluding that the legislature was not an employer under the SERA and to permit the Labor Board to review the actions of the legislature would violate the separation of powers doctrine.]
State of Connecticut (Department of Correction), Decision No. 3398 (5/9/96): Union filed complaint alleging various prohibited practices by the State associated with the issuance of a sick leave directive. The Labor Board found that the issues raised by the Union had been finally decided in State of Connecticut (Department of Correction), Decision No. 3170 (1993) and that the parties were bound by that decision under the principles of res judicata. [Appeal dismissed, AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 & 1565 v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Corrections, et al., 48 Conn. App. 783 (1998) upholding Board’s decision to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata.]
State of CT, Division of Criminal Justice, Decision No. 3552 (11/19/97); State of CT, Division of Criminal Justice, Decision No. 3553 (11/19/97): Two different unions filed complaints against the same Employer, both alleging that the Employer violated the Act by laying off employees and by failing to pay 5% interest on monetary provisions awarded in interest arbitration. The Unions first alleged that the Employer violated Section 5-278 by laying off employees after the state legislature had failed to reject interest arbitration awards. The statute provides for the rejection of an award by the General Assembly if it determines that "there are insufficient funds for full implementation of the award." The Unions argued that by failing to reject the awards, the legislature implied that there were sufficient funds to implement the agreements at current staffing levels. The Labor Board disagreed, concluding that absent express contract language to the contrary, the legislature’s failure to reject the awards did not create a minimum manning clause, requiring the Employer to maintain existing staffing levels. The Unions further claimed that the Employer was required to pay interest on the monetary portions of the awards because they were not paid within 60 days of the awards' issuance pursuant to Section 5-276b(a).The Labor Board concluded that the timeline did not begin to run until the legislature had been given the opportunity to reject the award. Because the Employer paid the monetary portions of the awards within 60 days of being presented with the awards, the Labor Board dismissed the complaints. [Appeals sustained, Local 749 and Local 1437, AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO v. State of Connecticut, Department of Criminal Justice and State Board of Labor Relations, CV98-492621 (J.D. New Britain, 2/16/99, McWeeny, J.): In two cases raising the same issue (Decision Nos. 3552, 3553), the Labor Board concluded that the State’s failure to pay interest on retroactive arbitration awards did not violate Section 5-276b(a) of the SERA because the legislature did not have the opportunity to reject the awards within 60 days of their issuance. Both Unions appealed. The court relied on the legislative history of the statutory provision to conclude that it was intended to deter tardy compensation payments by the State. The court found that the statutory language did not support the Labor Board’s conclusion that legislative approval was a necessary precondition to the triggering of the interest obligation. Rather, the court read the statute to require interest after 60 days, regardless of when the legislature approves the award. The Labor Board’s decision was vacated.]
State of CT, Dept. Of Social Services, Decision No. 3512 (6/6/97): The Union had filed a prior complaint, which was recommended for dismissal by the Agent. The Union did not file a timely objection to the dismissal. The Labor Board found that the instant complaint was nearly identical to the previously dismissed case and concluded that the prior dismissal acted as a bar to a decision on the merits of the second complaint.
State of CT (DOC), Decision No. 3014-A (9/24/92): The Union sought to reopen the record based upon newly discovered evidence. The Labor Board found that the Union failed to meet its burden under Section 5-273-66 of the regulations in that it failed to demonstrate that the additional evidence proffered was material to its original assertions. The Labor Board therefore denied the motion. State of CT (DOC), Decision No. 3014 (6/5/92): The Labor Board originally granted the Union’s motion to reopen the record based upon newly discovered evidence premised on the belief that the State did not oppose the Union’s motion. After discovering the State never received a copy of the Union’s motion and did, in fact, oppose such motion, the parties briefed the issue and issued Decision No. 3104-A above.
Board of Trustees CSU, Decision No. 2939 (9/6/91): The Union alleged the State violated the prohibition of §5-275(b)(4) which provides there may only be one faculty unit at CSU when the State removed a counselor position from the bargaining unit and assigned the duties of that position to an employee in another bargaining unit. The Union further argues that counseling responsibilities are solely within the responsibility of the faculty per the collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board found that the Union alleged a breach of contract, not statute, and dismissed the complaint.
State of CT (DOC), Decision No. 2866 (11/19/90): The Union filed a prohibited practice alleging the grievant was dismissed in violation of the Act. The parties agreed on a full stipulation of facts and exhibits. The State filed a motion to dismiss alleging the Labor Board lacked jurisdiction to decide this matter in that a grievance arbitration award had already upheld the dismissal. The Labor Board denied the motion to dismiss and discussed the interrelationship between the collective bargaining grievance procedure and the statutory jurisdiction of the Labor Board to determine whether an employee’s statutory rights were violated.
State of Connecticut Judicial Dept. –and- Local 749, Council 4, AFSCME, Case No. SPP-19,994 (8/4/04): The State filed a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the Union alleging the Sate retaliated against bargaining unit member Ayers. Bargaining unit member Ayers also filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination. The State made an offer of judgment to Ayers which was entered by the Court in favor of Ayers. The State then filed a motion to dismiss alleging the complaint before the Labor Board was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Labor Board found res judicata did not bar the complaint. The Labor Board employed the following analysis in determining an exception to the general application of the preclusion doctrines: 1-whether another public policy interest outweighs the interest of finality served by the preclusion doctrines; 2-whether the incentive to litigate a claim or issue differs as between the two forums; 3- whether the opportunity to litigate a claim or issue differs as between two forums; and 4-whether the legislature has evinced an intent that the doctrine should not apply.
State of Connecticut (DOE) – and – SVFT, Local 1797, AFT/CFST –and- Salvatore DeFilippo, Case Nos. SPP-16,311 & SUPP-16,312 (10/29/97): The Complainant filed a motion to compel both the State and the Union to produce certain documents. In its discussion, the Labor Board first noted that there is no general right to engage in discovery before the Labor Board, but that the Labor Board is authorized to direct the production of papers or documents as the Labor Board may find necessary for a fair determination of the issues presented. The Labor Board then examined the requests made by the Complainant and individually addressed the relevancy and possible privilege attached to each document.
State of Connecticut (DOE) – and – SVFT, Local 1797, AFT/CFST – and – Salvatore DeFilippo, Case Nos. SPP-16,311 & SUPP-16,312 (10/29/97): The Complainant filed a motion to sever two complaints he filed which related to the same circumstances and facts. The Labor Board dismissed the Complainant’s motion.