Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF STAMFORD
-AND- DECISION NO. 5169
STAMFORD CITY SUPERVISORS MARCH 3, 2021
LOCAL 2657 OF COUNCIL 4,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Case No. MPP-33,731
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Attorney Gabriel J. Jiran
for the City
Attorney Lorin Dafoe
for the Union
DECISION AND DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
On July 5, 2019, Local 2657 of Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed a
complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (the Labor Board), alleging that
the City of Stamford (the City) violated the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA or the
Act) by subcontracting the duties of the school facilities manager to newly hired non-union
employees.
After the requisite preliminary steps had been taken, the matter came before the Labor
Board for a hearing on July 27, 2020. All parties appeared, were represented by counsel, and
allowed to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and make argument. Both
parties filed post-hearing briefs on October 21, 2020. Based on the entire record before us, we
make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and we dismiss the complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City is a municipal employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. At all times relevant hereto, the Union has been an employee organization within the
meaning of the Act and the bargaining representative for a unit of certain City supervisory
employees assigned to City and Stamford Board of Education (the School Board) facilities,
including the position of school facilities manager (School Facilities Manager). (Ex. 8).
2
3. At all times relevant hereto, the City and the Union1 were parties to a collective
bargaining agreement, effective July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, which stated, in relevant
part:
ARTICLE XVI
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
SECTION 16.0
a. All statutory and inherent managerial rights, prerogatives, and functions
are retained and vested exclusively in the City, including … the rights …
to … contract for services with other units of government and/or private
contractors for the provision of services to or by the City…
(Ex. 8).
4. At all relevant times prior to 2000, the City employed a Union bargaining unit member as
the school facilities manager (School Facilities Manager) to manage school custodians, trades
people, and outside contractors working in 21 School Board facilities.
5. The job description for the School Facilities Manager stated, in relevant part:
GENERAL SUMMARY OF DUTIES
Under the general direction of the Director of Operations or designee, is
responsible for planning, organizing, coordinating, supervising and evaluating the
operational and maintenance programs for all school system buildings, facilities
and sites, monitors work done by private contractors, plans, coordinates and
supervises [School Board] Capital Projects; does related work as required.
EXAMPLES OF WORK (Illustrative only)
Supervises, controls and evaluates custodial and maintenance personnel assigned
[to the School Board].
Responsible for cleanliness, safety, security and maintenance of all facilities as
well as the proper heating and ventilation of all buildings.
Recommends, plans, schedules and supervises improvements, alterations and
repairs to existing facilities.
Prepares plans, specifications and cost estimates for projected work.
1 The Union is referred to in the contract as “Stamford Municipal Supervisory Employees Union”. (Ex. 8).
3
Plans, prepares and supervises preventive maintenance and energy management
programs.
Makes judgments concerning the need to employ private contractors.
Issues recommendations concerning the granting of contracts, monitors and
inspects contractors work, and improves claims for payment for completed work.
Prepares, conducts and supervises training programs for all operations and
maintenance staff and periodically inspects work performed to evaluate quality
and quantity of service rendered.
Formulates and implements departmental operating policies and procedures.
Performs technical liaison work with architects and engineers in planning
additions and alterations to buildings and site improvement and development
projects.
Recommends, plans and supervises Capital Projects.
Maintains records to support departmental activities and prepares periodic
projections in statistical reports on regular operations and special projects
undertaken.
…
6. From approximately 2000 to June 2019, and without objection from the Union, the City
subcontracted the duties of the School Facilities Manager to private contractors in accordance
with Article 16 of the collective bargaining agreement.2
7. The Stamford Board of Education (the School Board) is a municipal employer within the
meaning of the Act. The School Board does not have a collective bargaining relationship with
the Union.
8. In 2019, Tamu Lucero was appointed superintendent of schools. Shortly thereafter and
due to dissatisfaction with the conditions in some school buildings, the School Board decided to
take direct control over the management of its facilities.
9. On or about May 30, 2019, the School Board posted the following vacancy (Ex. 3),
stating in relevant part:
Openings as of 6/4/2019
2 The City subcontracted the work to a private contractor, AFB, for approximately 15 years and thereafter to another
private contractor, ABM.
4
Facilities Manager
…
GENERAL STATEMENT:
The Facilities Manager is responsible for managing site-specific operations and
reports directly to the Stamford Asset Management Group (SAMG).[3]
KEY FUNCTIONS
Ensure that scope of work as defined by SAMG is followed in accordance
with daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly schedules.
Schedule, coordinate and plan with custodians, trades, and contracted service
workers.
Identify and recommend repairs and improvements for the school facilities
and grounds in order to maintain healthy and safe environments for students,
staff, and the community.
Review work orders daily and follow up with custodians and trades.
Meet regularly with School Principal or designee and discuss concerns and
progress on all work orders.
Walk and inspect all school sites weekly.
Interact with City Engineering Department, contractors, architects, and
engineers in connection with short and long-term capital projects.
Develop and direct the school district’s snow removal plan for schools in their
area of responsibility.
Assist SAMG with labor relations for custodians and trades.
Develop and oversee a preventative maintenance program.
Support district-wide efforts to complete, maintain, and update a facilities
capital asset assessment.
Work collaboratively with building administrators and staff to ensure a clean
and safe environment for all students and staff.
Conduct regular building inspections for safety, cleaning standards, and
procedure compliance.
Coordinate inspections by state agencies, insurance companies, fire, police,
and health department.
Complete district compliance trainings as required.
…
10. In response to the posting, Union president Daniel Colleluori sent an email to the City‘s
director of human resources and the director of the City’s Law Department, stating that the
3 SAMG was created by the superintendent of schools to oversee capital projects and consists of the superintendent,
the City engineer, the assistant to the mayor, a facilities manager, and formerly the director of administration.
5
Union expects the posted position to be in the bargaining unit. Colleluori received no response
and sent a similar email to Lucero. Colleluori again received no response.
11. On June 26, 2019, the School Board hired Kevin McCarthy as a Facilities Manager.
Approximately one month later, the School Board also hired Andrew Glassman and John Perna
as Facilities Managers.4 McCarthy, Glassman, and Perna were hired without the approval or
participation of the City’s Civil Service Commission. (Exs. 12, 13, 14).
12. McCarthy, Glassman, and Perna are School Board employees and are not members of the
Union’s bargaining unit. The School Board issued “Term Sheets” to each for the 2019-2020
school year, which state, in relevant part:
This term sheet outlines the wages and benefits offered by the [School Board] to
… (hereinafter “Employee”) serving the [School] Board in the capacity of
FACILITIES MANAGER during the school year referenced above….
…
I. The duties of the position of FACILITIES MANAGER … are outlined
in the job description for that position and include such duties as may be
established by the [School Board] or assigned by the Superintendent.
II. The annual salary shall be the sum of the following:
a.) BASE PAY … An annual cash component…
b.) ANNUITY. An additional sum … contributed towards the purchase
of [an] annuity with a tax sheltered annuity company of [the
Employee’s] choice; and
III. The work year shall commence on July 1 and shall terminate on June
30…
a.) VACATION. Employee shall receive up to twenty (20) paid days of
vacation…
…
4 Each offer of employment was contingent upon passing a criminal history and child abuse and neglect registry
check pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §10-221d.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-221d states, in relevant part:
(b) Each eligible school operator shall … (2) require each applicant to submit to a records check of
the Department of Children and Families child abuse and neglect registry … and (3) … state and
national criminal history records checks…
6
b.) HOLIDAYS. The following are paid holidays: Independence Day,
Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day,
Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,
Presidents Day, Good Friday, and Memorial Day. These Holidays
shall be observed according to the school calendar.
IV. The employee shall adhere to, abide by, and maintain the rules,
regulations, and policies adopted by the [School Board] for governance
of the Stamford Public Schools.
V. The employee shall be evaluated annually by the Superintendent or their
designee.
VI. The Superintendent may terminate the employment relationship at any
time.
…
VIII. Employee shall be entitled to health and life insurance, sick and personal
leave as offered to administrative and supervisory personnel as set forth
in the collective bargaining agreement for the Stamford Board of
Education Administrative Unit in effect at the time this term sheet is
issued.
IX. The [School Board] shall provide … [monthly] travel allowance … and
shall reimburse all actual and necessary travel and other additional
expenses…
…
(Exs. 12, 13, 14).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Absent an adequate defense, an employer commits an unlawful refusal to bargain and a
prohibited practice when it unilaterally transfers bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit
employees.
2. An employer violates its duty under the Act to bargain in good faith when it repudiates a
collective bargaining agreement.
3. The City did not violate the Act.
DISCUSSION
7
The Union contends that the City subcontracted bargaining unit work in violation of
Section 7-470(4)5 of the Act. Specifically, the Union argues the City’s transfer of the work of the
School Facilities manager to three non-bargaining unit employees in 2019 constituted illegal
subcontracting under the standard adopted by the Labor Board in City of New Britain, Decision
No. 3290 (1995).
The City responds that the Union has failed to make out a prima facie case of illegal
subcontracting because the work of the School Facilities Manager has been performed by private
contractors for over 20 years. The City further contends that the transfer at issue was permitted
by the collective bargaining agreement because the School Board constitutes another “unit[] of
government” within the meaning of Article 16 and as such, is a valid defense to a prima facie
case of improper subcontracting. Based on the entire record before us, we find that the City did
not violate the Act. 6
Our standard for determining whether an employer has transferred work outside of the
bargaining unit in violation of the Act was first articulated in City of New Britain, supra.
The Union bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that: (1) the
work in question is bargaining unit work; (2) the subcontracting or transfer of
work varied significantly in kind or degree from what had been customary under
past established practice; and (3) the alleged subcontracting or transfer of work
had a demonstrable adverse impact on the bargaining unit. Once a union has
established a prima facie case the burden shifts to the employer to provide an
adequate defense. City of Bridgeport, Decision No. 4706 (2014); City of New
Haven, Decision No. 4656 (2013); Woodbridge Board of Education, Decision
No. 4565 (2011); City of Bridgeport, Decision No. 4478 (2010). Such defenses
may include the existence of a contractual provision which permits the
subcontracting or transfer of the work; that the work removed from the bargaining
unit is de minimus, or that the transfer was in keeping with established past
5 Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-470 states, in relevant part:
(a) Municipal 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
... as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit...
6 In its brief, the Union argues that the City’s contract defense amounts to improper repudiation because it is based
on an interpretation of Article 16 which is made in bad faith and frivolous. See, e.g., City of New Haven, Decision
No. 4936 p.6 (2016) (Repudiation of a collective bargaining agreement may occur, in relevant part, where the
respondent has taken an action based upon an interpretation of the contract that “is asserted in subjective bad faith”
or that “is wholly frivolous or implausible…”) Since the record, in our view, does not support a finding of subjective
bad faith or implausibility, as alleged, we reject the Union’s repudiation argument.
8
practice. In addition, either party may argue that public policy may have an
impact on the situation. Town of Enfield, Decision No. 4620 (2012); City of
Bridgeport, Decision No. 4478, supra.
City of New London, Decision No. 5155 pp.7-8 (2020); see also City of New Haven, Decision
No. 5012 (2018); City of Waterbury, Decision No. 4994 (2018);City of New Haven, Decision
No. 4961 (2017); Southington Board of Education, Decision No. 4879 (2016).
Given the record before us, the Union’s reliance on City of New Britain is misplaced
because the School Board, and not the City, removed the work in question from the bargaining
unit through a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion. “The Act is clear that a school board
may be considered a separate municipal employer for purposes of collective bargaining when it
has sole and exclusive control over the appointment of and the wages, hours and conditions of
employment of its employees.”7 Town of Bloomfield, Decision No. 3784 p.5 (2000). In this
case, the law and the facts support a conclusion that the School Board and the City are separate
entities for purposes of a subcontracting analysis.
We have said that “[Connecticut General Statutes] § 10-220 [8] grants extensive powers to
local boards of education and that § 10-220 will be sufficient, standing alone, to establish the
sole and exclusive control standard … unless a local charter provision expressly removes that
control from the local board.” (Footnote added.) Hartford Board of Education, Decision No.
2335 (1984) (discussing Local 1186 v. Board of Education, 182 Conn. 93 (1980)); see also
Town of Ridgefield, Decision No. 3921 (2003). The record does not reflect City charter limits9
on School Board control over its facilities and employees but it does contain ample evidence that
the School Board hired McCarthy, Glassman, and Perna and exercised sole and exclusive control
over their wages, benefits, and other terms of employment.
7 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-474 states, in relevant part:
(d) If the municipal employer is a … school board … which by statute, charter, special act or
ordinance has sole and exclusive control over the appointment of and the wages, hours and
conditions of employment of its employees, such … school board … shall have the authority to
enter into collective bargaining agreements with the employee organization which is the exclusive
representative of such employees…
8 Section 10-220 states, in relevant part:
Each local or regional board of education shall maintain good public elementary and secondary
schools, implement the educational interests of the state … and provide such other educational
activities as in its judgment will best serve the interests of the school district … and shall give all
the children of the school district … as nearly equal advantages as may be practicable; shall
provide an appropriate learning environment for all its students which includes (1) adequate
instructional books, supplies, materials, equipment, staffing, facilities and technology, (2)
equitable allocation of resources among its schools, (3) proper maintenance of facilities, and (4) a
safe school setting…
9 The City charter was not offered by either party.
9
In City of Bloomfield, supra, we were faced with a similar set of circumstances. In that
case, the local school board was in a collective bargaining relationship with a union and utilized
bargaining unit members to provide building maintenance services to the city. After several
years, the city informed the school board that it was terminating that arrangement and hired a
private contractor to take over that function. We rejected the union’s claim that the school board
illegally subcontracted the work and stated, in relevant part:
This case involves two separate and distinct municipal employers, the Town and
the School Board… [T]he municipal employer of the affected employees, i.e., the
School Board, had nothing to do with the decision to stop providing building
maintenance services for a fee to the Town. The work in question was removed as
a result of a third party determining that it no longer wished to utilize the service.
The School Board had no control over the existence of the work and cannot be
held responsible for its removal.
Id., pp. 5, 8.
Our reasoning in Town of Bloomfield is applicable here. In this case, the School Board is
a separate municipal employer with the right to create new positions for legitimate business
reasons. See e.g., Shelton Board of Education, Decision No. 2751 (1989). In accordance with its
rights, the School Board determined that it no longer wished to utilize the City to manage its
facilities and hired its own facilities managers. Since the City had no control over the continued
existence of the work, it cannot in our view be held responsible for its removal. Town of
Bloomfield, supra; see also City of Meriden, Decision No. 3822 p.6 (2001) (“the City has the
sole and exclusive control over the subject of pensions and as such, the Board of Education
cannot be held responsible for the City’s actions with regard to … early retirement…”).10
Even assuming arguendo, that the City subcontracted bargaining unit work, we find that
Article 16 of the collective bargaining agreement provides the City with a valid contract defense.
“Assessment of a contract defense requires an exercise of our limited jurisdiction to interpret a
contract where the employer’s conduct constitutes a prima facie violation of the Act and the
employer seeks to justify its conduct on the grounds that the contract permits the change.” Town
of Enfield, Decision No. 4620 p. 6 (2012) (Internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Woodbridge Board of Education, Decision No. 4565 (2011); Town of Plainville, Decision No.
1790 (1979). Collective bargaining agreements are construed according to “established
principles of contract interpretation.” Poole v. City of Waterbury, 266 Conn. 68, 87 (2003). In
ascertaining the intent of the parties as expressed in a contract, “the language used must be
accorded its common, natural, and ordinary meaning and usage where it can be sensibly applied
to the subject matter of the contract.” Honulik v. Town of Greenwich, 293 Conn. 698 (2009).
10 In its brief, the City’s admits that “this case would be different if … the employees at issue were City employees.”
We agree. City’s brief, p.6.
10
In relevant part, Article 16 permits the City to contract for services with “other units of
government”. (Ex. 4). “Where the parties fail to define a term in their contract, it is appropriate
to look to the dictionary to ascertain the commonly approved usage of the word.” City of
Bridgeport, Decision No. 4693 p.7 n.3 (2013) (citing Buell Industries v. Greater New York
Mutual Ins., 259 Conn. 527, 539 (2002)). Webster’s broadly defines the noun “unit” as any
“entity regarded as … constituent [11] of a whole” and the adjective “other” as something
“different from that or those specified…” (Footnote added.) Webster’s II New College
Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1995). Guided by these definitions, for the purposes of the
City’s contract defense we interpret “other units of government” as used in Article 16 to mean a
component of a government body which is distinct from the City.
We find that the School Board falls within that definition. “As a general matter, parties
are presumed to have contracted with knowledge of the existing law, and contract language must
be interpreted in reference thereto … (Internal quotations marks and citation omitted.) LMK
Enterprises, Inc. v. Sun Oil Co., 86 Conn. App. 302, 307 (2004) (citing Hatcho Corp. v. Della
Pietra, 195 Conn. 18, 21 (1985). It is well settled that the state has a duty under the Connecticut
constitution to furnish education to the general public which the legislature has statutorily
delegated to local boards of education, Hartford Ed. Ass'n v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 573
(1972). In fulfilling these duties “local boards of education act as agencies of the state…”, Town
of Cheshire v McKenney, 182 Conn. 253, 257 (1980), and are distinct from the municipalities in
which they operate.12 City of Bridgeport v. Agostinelli, 163 Conn. 537, 550 (1972) (“A town or
city is a political subdivision of the state … It is not an agency of the state”); White Oak Corp. v.
Dep't of Consumer Protection, 12 Conn. App. 251, 254 (1987) (“[T]here is indeed a difference
between a municipal corporation and an agency (be it state, federal or municipal) … In
Connecticut, towns and cities are not considered agencies of the state”).
For all of the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the Union’s complaint.
ORDER
By virtue of and pursuant to the powers vested in the Connecticut State Board of Labor
Relations by the Municipal Employee Relations Act, it is hereby
ORDERED that the complaint filed herein be and the same hereby is DISMISSED.
11 In this context, “constituent” is a synonym of “component”.
12 Local boards of education can also serve as agents of the municipality. Town of Cheshire v McKenney,
182 Conn. 253 (1980). In our view, however, this does not nullify their status as an agency of the state and a distinct
unit of government within the meaning of Article 16.
11
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
Wendella Ault Battey
Wendella Ault Battey
Acting Chairman
Barbara J. Collins
Barbara J. Collins
Board Member
Ellen M. Carter
Ellen M. Carter
Alternate Board Member
12
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed postage prepaid this 3rd day of
March, 2021 to the following:
Attorney Lorin Dafoe
Council 4, AFSCME
444 East Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051
Attorney Gabriel J. Jiran
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________________________________
Katherine C. Foley, Agent
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
