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
|
|
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
|
Negotiator
|
Approve, or if it chooses
appoint, a negotiator for the city.
|
Powers
|
• Approve or reject all
agreements or amendments, indicating specific provisions rejected.
• Review entire contract, not
just negotiated elements, in making decision.
• Approve or reject revised
agreements.
|
Rejecting a Proposed Agreement
|
• Board must indicate the
provisions causing the rejection and state its rationale.
• Board may indicate what costs
or savings it finds acceptable in a contract.
• Board must allow parties to
make a presentation to it before rejecting an agreement.
|
Revised Agreement
|
• Parties have 10 days to
consider the board’s concerns and renegotiate.
• Revised agreement must be submitted
to the board.
|
Rejecting a Revised Agreement
|
• If the parties cannot
renegotiate a rejected agreement or if the board rejects the revised
agreement, the board sets the terms of a new agreement.
• Before imposing a new
agreement, board must allow parties to make a presentation to it.
|
Scope and Effect of Imposed Agreement
|
• The board may consider or
include matters not raised or negotiated by the parties.
• The board’s terms are binding.
|
BINDING ARBITRATION
|
Arbitration Panel
|
• Board serves as arbitration
panel.
• Board replaces existing panel
for any contract in or subject to arbitration on the act’s effective date.
|
Arbitration Timetable
|
• Board may impose arbitration
after 75 days of negotiations.
• All TNA and MERA arbitration
process deadlines reduced by half.
|
Scope of Arbitration
|
Unlimited.
|
Decision Criteria
|
None specified.
|
-Continued-
|
|
CONTRACT REOPENERS
|
Request
|
• Board may ask union to reopen
an existing contract.
• Board may present a proposed
revision to the union.
|
Deadlines
|
• Union
has five days to respond to request.
• If union refuses to negotiate
or does not respond, State Labor Board agent calls a bargaining unit meeting
within 10 days.
• If union agrees to talk,
parties negotiate for up to 14 days, with mutually agreed extension of up to
another 14 days (maximum 28 days).
• If the parties agree, revised
contract is subject to regular union ratification procedures.
• If negotiations fail, union
must hold a vote of the bargaining unit membership on the board’s last best
offer within five days after negotiations end.
|
Bargaining Unit Meeting
|
• If union refuses to negotiate,
board presents proposed revisions to the bargaining unit membership.
• If negotiations fail, union
must put the board’s last best offer to unit members.
• Board must have a chance to
make a presentation to the members before the vote.
|
Bargaining Unit Vote
|
The vote of the unit members is
final. If a majority votes to accept the board’s offer, it takes effect. If
not, the revisions fail.
|
Other
|
Reopener procedures are exempt from TNA and MERA
prohibited practice provisions.
|