• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
STATE OF CONNECTICUTLABOR DEPARTMENTCONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF
LOCAL 4200A, STATE VOCATIONAL
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFT
-and-
CATHERINE MIRABILIO-BORER 
Case No. SUPP-17,431
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Attorney Brian Doyle
For the Union
Attorney Floyd J. Dugas
For the Complainant
DECISION NO. 3633OCTOBER 30, 1998
DECISION AND DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
On July 26, 1995, Catherine Mirabilio-Borer (the Complainant) filed a complaint, asamended,
1
with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (the Labor Board) alleging thatthe State Vocational Federation of Teachers, Local 4200A (the Union) had violated
'
5-272
2
of the Act Concerning Collective Bargaining for State Employees (SERA or the Act), bydiscriminating and retaliating against Complainant in breach of its duty of fair representation.
1
During the pendency of the hearing on Case No. SUPP-17,431, the Complainant filed asecond complaint against the Union, SUPP-19,136, on May 20, 1997, alleging that the Union continuedto breach its duty of fair representation in violation of the Act by failing to properly represent theComplainant on issues stemming from a lengthy paid suspension in 1996-97. (Ex. 21). At the hearing onSeptember 16, 1997, the Complainant withdrew Case No. SUPP-19,136 in its entirety, and presentedevidence and testimony regarding the 1996-97 suspension in Case No. SUPP-17,431. Also on September 16, 1997, the Complainant amended the complaint in Case No. SUPP-17,431 by deleting the allegationscontained in paragraph 7.
2
The complaint cites Section 5-271(d), which sets forth the existence of the duty of fair representation. Section 5-272(b)(4) makes it a prohibited act for a Union to breach its duty of fair representation.
 
After the requisite preliminary steps had been taken, the matter came before the Labor Board for a hearing on September 10, 1996, May 5, 1997, June 23, 1997, September 16, 1997,September 18, 1997 and November 21, 1997, at which times the parties appeared, wererepresented by counsel, and were provided full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine andcross examine witnesses, and make argument. On September 16, 1997, the Union made an oralmotion to dismiss the complaint. On September 18, 1997, the Labor Board deferred ruling onthe motion until the close of evidence. On November 21, 1997, the Labor Board again deferredruling on the motion until after reviewing the entire record. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs, the last of which was received by the Labor Board on January 9, 1998.Based upon the whole record before us, we make the following findings of fact andconclusion of law and we dismiss the complaint on the merits.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Union is an employee organization within the meaning of the Act, and at all timesrelevant hereto has been the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of vocational-technical instructors employed by the State of Connecticut Board of Education (the State or theEmployer).2. At all times relevant hereto, the Complainant was a Culinary Arts Instructor employed inthe State vocational-technical system and a member of the Union.3. At all times relevant hereto, all vocational-technical instructors, including theComplainant, were subject to the State's "Child Abuse Policy" issued on or about September 25,1990. (Ex. 15). The policy, issued in response to state legislation, required staff members who became reasonably suspicious that a child was being abused, either at home or in the school, toreport their suspicions to the regional office of the state Department of Children and YouthServices (DCYS) and to the school administration.4. At all times relevant hereto, David Howard (Howard) was an Executive BuildingRepresentative for the Union, an elected position equivalent to a Chief Steward.5. During the 1989-90 school year, the Complainant was assigned to the Culinary ArtsDepartment at Platt Technical School (Platt Tech) in Milford, Connecticut.6. In approximately March of 1990, Howard was made aware of a situation involving theComplainant and her direct supervisor, the Culinary Department Head Craig Voytek (Voytek).Specifically, the Complainant and Voytek did not get along, and the Complainant had madeallegations of harassment against him. Howard met with the Complainant, Voytek andrepresentatives of management in an effort to resolve the situation. Howard was concerned thatthe Complainant was in a more vulnerable position than Voytek because he was tenured and shewas not. Howard advised the Complainant of her right to file a complaint alleging sexual2
 
harassment with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CCHRO).The Complainant did file at least one CCHRO complaint, which was recommended for dismissalon the merits with a finding of no reasonable cause. (Ex. 17).7. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant was informed by David Sullivan, Labor RelationsSpecialist for the State (Sullivan), that she was being administratively transferred from PlattTech, effective immediately and prior to the end of the school year. Howard was present at thismeeting, and informed Sullivan that such a transfer would violate the Complainant's rights under the contract, which provided for thirty days prior notice of an administrative transfer.8. The Union filed a grievance on behalf of the Complainant because of the administrativetransfer, which was approved for arbitration by the Union's Grievance Arbitration Committee.9. Thereafter, Howard and Barry Scheinberg (Scheinberg), the Union's attorney, asked theComplainant to inform them of the remedies she was seeking in an effort to resolve the transfer grievance. When the Complainant finally made her demands known, Scheinberg communicatedthem to the Employer by letter dated May 11, 1992. (Ex. 31).10. The Complainant based her demands on what she understood Voytek received insettlement of his grievance after he was likewise administratively transferred in June of 1990.The Complainant never personally saw Voytek 
=
s settlement. The Union did not participate in thesettlement of Voytek's grievance.11. The Employer ultimately offered to reimburse the Complainant for the mileage costs andadditional travel time she expended for thirty days, representing the notice period that theComplainant was entitled to under the contract. In addition, Sullivan apologized to theComplainant for the State's failure to provide thirty days notice as required by contract. TheComplainant accepted the Employer's settlement offer.12. Despite her acceptance of the remedies described above, the Complainant still wanted theUnion to arbitrate her transfer grievance. After consultation with Scheinberg, Howard concludedthat the Complainant's remaining demands were not attainable remedies under the contract.Howard wrote to the Complainant on December 3, 1992 to inform her that the Union did notintend to pursue her transfer grievance to arbitration because there were no remainingcontractual remedies that the Complainant had not already received from the employer. (Ex. 32).Howard further informed the Complainant that she had the right to pursue the grievance toarbitration at her own expense. There is no evidence as to whether the Complainant individually pursued the grievance.13. During the 1993-94 school year, the Complainant was one of three Union membersassigned to the Culinary Arts Department at the W.F. Kaynor Regional Vocational TechnicalSchool (Kaynor Tech) in Waterbury, Connecticut. The other two members were Culinary ArtsInstructor Gary Zachachewski, commonly referred to as
A
Chef Z
@
, and the Culinary DepartmentHead Art Thayer (Thayer).3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...