Labor Relations and Employment Law: Developments in Connecticut in 1989

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut,United States
• Publication year: 2021
• Citation: Vol. 64 Pg. 164
• Pages: 164

Connecticut Bar Journal Volume 64.

64 CBJ 164. LABOR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW: DEVELOPMENTS IN CONNECTICUT IN 1989

LABOR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW: DEVELOPMENTS IN CONNECTICUT IN 1989

By KENNETH R. PLUMB(fn*)

In terms of labor and employment law, the Connecticut courts spent much of their time addressing issues relating to collective bargaining in the public sector in 1989 while the General Assembly again indicated its willingness to enact legislation, such as guaranteed parental leave, directly impacting on the employer/employee relationship. This article briefly summarizes some of the more noteworthy decisions of the Connecticut Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Superior Court and State Board of Labor Relations. Several of the more prominent pieces of legislation enacted during the 1989 session of the General Assembly will also be reviewed.

I. SUPREME COURT

In Southington v. State Board of Labor Relations(fn1) the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the meaning and application of the term "department heads" in connection with he exclusion of certain town officials from supervisory bargaining units under the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA).(fn2) Local 818, AFSCME, had filed a petition with the State Board of Labor Relations seeking to represent all supervisory employees of the Town. The Board ordered an election that included fourteen supervisory positions, and the Town challenged the eligibility of ten of the fourteen, claiming they were "department heads" under the MERA and, therefore, statutorily excluded from bargaining collectively. After the election, the Board held hearings on the town's challenges and ruled that only two of the ten positions were "department heads" and properly excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Union subsequently demanded that the Town negotiate for all employees in the certified unit. At the first bargaining

---

165

session, the Town refused to negotiate with regard to five(fn3) of the original ten disputed positions. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, which subsequently issued a decision ordering the town to negotiate with the union over the disputed positions. The Town appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court which affirmed the Board's order.

In its decision, the Board had listed three criteria for determining whether an official is a "department head" under MERA: (1) Does the person report directly to the Town's chief executive officer? (2) Is the degree of supervisory control greater than that of a "supervisor" under the Act? (3) Does the person head a major functional division of the municipality?

The Supreme Court acknowledged that no special deference was due the Board's construction of the statute because neither the Board nor the courts had previously ruled on the issue. Nevertheless, after reviewing the applicable legislative history, the court, in a 4-1 decision, dismissed the Town's appeal and upheld the Board's position. The Court found that P.A. 83-503 did not mandate exclusion of the department heads in question, that the municipal functions in question were not "major" within the meaning of the Act and that the Board's decision did not create an unfair and discriminatory impact on smaller and less wealthy towns. The decision also states that any further refinement of the Act "is precisely the type of question that is properly considered across the street,' that is, in the General Assembly."

Another 1989 case of interest to public sector practitioners is New Haven v. New Haven Police Local 530.(fn4) From August, 1979, when $250,000 in community development funds became available, the City of New Haven began using full-time police officers on extra-duty assignments to provide security at thirteen elderly housing units. In May, 1980, after learning that the community development funds would be sharply reduced, the City appropriated $125,000 from other City funds to maintain the security and began using only part-time policemen who were not part of the bargaining unit. The Union filed a complaint with the State Board of Labor Relations, which ruled that the extra-duty assignments had become a condition of employment for the bargaining unit and the City had violated its duty to bargain over the change prior to implementation. The Board held that the City

---

166

could have limited the bargaining to the available $125,000, but bad to negotiate before ceasing to use bargaining unit members. The City appealed to the Superior Court, where the Board's decision was affirmed. No appeal was taken from that decision, and the parties returned to the Board for compliance proceedings relating to that portion of the 1981 decision ordering compensation to those policemen who had been deprived of the opportunity to perform extra-duty work at the elderly housing sites. The Board's 1985 decision upheld the Union's position on most of the disputed compliance issues.

The City appealed that decision to the Superior Court alleging that the Board had erroneously calculated the back pay awards to the applicable policemen. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the City was barred by res judicata from seeking further review since it failed to appeal the 1981 decision. The City appealed this decision to the Appellate Court which set aside the judgment and remanded to the trial court, for the purpose of issuing a decision on the merits. On remand, the trial court affirmed the 1985 Board decision. Specifically, the lower court rejected the City's contentions that the total compensation award should be limited to the $125,000 appropriation, that prior employment records of individual officers claiming compensation should have been considered in determining the amount they had lost and that any amounts earned during that period by claimants from other extra-duty work should be deducted.

The City's appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the City's failure to appeal the original Superior Court decision in 1981 rendered that decision final. However, the Court upheld the City's appeal of the 1985 compliance decision, finding that the amount of the compensation award should have been limited to the $125,000 appropriation. Further, the high court found that the Board had failed to make findings concerning the individual claims of policemen, a large percentage...