STATE OF CONNECTICUT

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

 

May 13, 2005, 2005-R-0486

 

WATERBURY FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT

 

BOARD’S LABOR POWERS

 

By: Judith Lohman, Chief Analyst

John Moran, Research Analyst

 

You asked whether (1) the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board has the power to supercede municipal collective bargaining and (2) there was a court challenge to the board’s actions regarding collective bargaining and, if so, what was the result.

SUMMARY

Special Act 01-1 gives the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board broad powers over Waterbury’s finances and operations. It establishes several special provisions for collective bargaining between the city and its employees. The act’s provisions supersede conflicting provisions of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) and the Teacher Negotiation Act (TNA). But the act does not allow the board to abrogate or supersede an existing collective bargaining agreement nor does it affect any MERA or TNA provisions except as it expressly provides.

The only court decisions regarding the board’s labor powers related to its change in health insurance coverage for retired Waterbury firefighters. In 2002, a Superior Court judge found that SA 01-1 did not give the board the unilateral power to change the coverage. The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned that ruling in 2003, but its decision was based on the applicable collective bargaining agreements, not on SA 01-1.

WATERBURY OVERSIGHT BOARD’S LABOR POWERS

Under SA 01-1, the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board has enhanced powers relating to collective bargaining negotiations with unions representing the city’s employees (SA 01-1, § 11). Among other things, the act allows the board to (1) impose its own terms in new and renewed collective bargaining agreements and binding arbitration awards, regardless of issues raised and negotiated between the city and the unions and (2) ask unions to reopen existing contracts and require bargaining unit members to vote on proposed contract revisions when the board and union fail to agree on revisions. But the act states that it does not affect any TNA or MERA provisions except as expressly provided (§ 20).

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Under the act, the board must approve or reject all new and renewed collective bargaining agreements and all changes in existing agreements (“reopeners”) between the city or board of education and their unions. If it rejects a new or reopener agreement, it must say why and specify which provisions it objects to. If the board chooses, it may also specify what costs or savings it finds acceptable in a new or reopener agreement.

If the board rejects a new or reopener agreement, the parties have 10 days to renegotiate it. If they fail to do so, or if the board rejects the renegotiated agreement, the board must specify binding terms. The board may consider and include in those terms matters the parties did not raise or negotiate, but only in a new agreement, not in a reopener. Before rejecting a proposed agreement or reopener or imposing its own terms, the board must give the parties a chance to make a presentation to it.

Binding Arbitration

The act requires the board to serve as the arbitration panel for contracts in, or subject to, binding arbitration. It allows the board to impose arbitration on the parties after 75 days of negotiations and reduces all other deadlines in MERA and TNA by half. The board replaced the existing arbitration panel for any contract that was already in arbitration on the act’s effective date.

In issuing an arbitration award, the board may consider or include any matter, not just those raised or negotiated by the parties or embodied in their last best offers on issues in dispute.

Reopening Existing Agreements

The act allows the board to (1) ask the union representing a bargaining unit to reopen its existing contract and (2) present a proposed revision to the union. If the union refuses to negotiate or does not respond to the request within five days, the board must present its proposed revision to the union membership at a meeting called for that purpose within 10 days by the State Board of Labor Relations through its agent. The agent must schedule a vote on the proposal to be held within five days of the meeting and post a notice of the vote’s date, time, and location.

If the union agrees to negotiate, the parties have up to 14 days, with one mutually agreed 14-day extension, to agree. If they agree, the revised contract is subject to regular bargaining unit ratification procedures. If they reach an impasse, the union must put the board’s last best offer before the bargaining unit membership for a vote within five days after negotiations end. The board must have an opportunity to present its offer to the members before the vote. If a majority of the unit members vote to accept the proposed revision, it takes effect; if not, the existing contract remains in effect. The vote is final; there is no binding arbitration. The act exempts these procedures from the prohibited practice provisions of MERA and the TNA.

A more detailed summary of the labor provisions of SA 01-1 appears in Table 1 at the end of this report.

Court Decisions Regarding the Waterbury Financial Oversight Board

In 2002, a Superior Court judge found that SA 01-1 did not give the oversight board the unilateral power to change health insurance coverage for a group of retired firefighters. The city and the board had switched the retired firefighters from a traditional indemnity health insurance plan to a managed care plan, and the retirees went to court to stop the move. The court enjoined the city and the board from involuntarily removing any retired firefighters from the health insurance plan they chose when they retired.

The city and the board appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court and won (Poole, et al. v. City of Waterbury, et al. , (266 Conn. 68 (2003)). But the Court overturned the lower court’s decision based on interpreting the union contract language and did not rule on whether SA 01-1 gave the oversight board the power to alter the health plan. In its decision, the court ruled that, while previous collective bargaining agreements between the city and the firefighters guaranteed retirees health insurance benefits, they only guaranteed benefits equivalent to those given to active employees under the contract. This meant that if the level of benefits is different under a newly negotiated contract, as occurred in this case, retirees would get that newly negotiated level.

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the issue of whether the trial court was wrong to decide that the legislature, under SA 01-1, did not empower the oversight board to modify the health plan. The court said that issue was moot in light of the language in existing contracts.

Table 1: Waterbury Oversight Board’s Labor Relations Powers

-Continued-