• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
STATE OF CONNECTIUCTLABOR DEPARTMENTCONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONSIN THE MATTER OFCITY OF NEW HAVEN-and-LOCAL 884, COUNCIL 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO-and-FRANCINE SMITHCase Nos.
MUPP-20, 303MPP-20, 304A P P E A R A N C E S:
William F. Clark 
Director of Labor Relations
For the City
Attorney J. William Gagne, Jr.
For the Union
Francine Smith
Pro Se
DECISION NO. 3852December 13, 2001
DECISION AND DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS
On September 18, 1998, the Complainant Francine Smith filed a complaint(MUPP-20,303) with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (the Labor Board),alleging that Local 884, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (the Union) had breached theduty of fair representation in violation of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (theAct). Also on September 18, 1998, the Complainant filed a second complaint (MPP-20,304), alleging that the City of New Haven (the City) had violated the Act by failing tomeet with or negotiate with the Complainant and her Union regarding her employmentstatus.
 
After the requisite preliminary steps had been taken, the cases were consolidatedfor hearing and the parties came before the Labor Board for a hearing on December 18,2000 and January 22, 2001. All parties were allowed to present evidence, examine andcross examine witnesses, and make argument.
1
All parties submitted post-hearing briefs,the last of which was received by the Labor Board on July 15, 2001.On the basis of the entire record before us, we make the following findings of factand conclusions of law, and we dismiss the complaints.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City is a municipal employer within the meaning of the Act.2. The Union is an employee organization within the meaning of the Act, and at allrelevant times has represented a bargaining unit of classified employees employed by theCity and by the New Haven Board of Education.3. The Complainant Francine Smith was at all relevant times a member of the bargaining unit represented by the Union.4. At all relevant times, the City and the Union were parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements containing the following provision: No provision of this Agreement shall in any way contravene the authority andresponsibility of the Civil Service Commission, and City Boards andCommissions as contained in the Charter and Ordinances.It is mutually agreed that the preceding paragraph shall not alter the terms of thisAgreement. (Exs. 4, 5).5. At all relevant times, all classified positions within the City were subject to theCivil Service Rules (Ex. 30), which contain the following provisions:RULE IV, Section 6.
 Reinstatement 
 
1 On March 19, 2001, the Complainant made a timely request to reopen the hearing to submitadditional evidence. Specifically, the Complainant sought to introduce portions of the Civil Service Rulesof the City of New Haven. The Labor Board granted the request by letter dated May 3, 2001, and theexhibit was entered into the record before the Board.
2
 
A. A person who has resigned from a permanent position, or who has beenremoved or otherwise separated therefrom for any cause other than fault or delinquency on his part, may be reinstated without examination, at any timewithin one year from the date of such separation, in a vacant position in the sameclass and range…RULE IX, Section 1.
General 
 
A person who has been permanently appointed to a position in the ClassifiedService Class may be transferred without examination to a similar position in thesame class and range in any other department, where there is a vacancy…6. Prior to August 15, 1997, the Complainant had been employed for approximatelynine years by the New Haven Board of Education as a 10-month Clerk Typist, aclassified bargaining unit position. As a 10 month employee, the Complainant’s salaryand benefits were pro-rated accordingly.7. On or about June 19, 1997, the Complainant took a Civil Service examination for the position of Police Records Clerk, which was a 12 month position. The posting for thevacancy indicated that the salary was Range 7 in the Local 884 contract. (Ex. 22). Assuch, the position was considered a promotion from the Clerk Typist position, which atthat time was at Range 5 under the terms of the expired July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1995collective bargaining agreement then in effect. (Ex. 4).8. On or about July 7, 1997, the Complainant was placed on a transfer list for anyvacant 10 month and 12 month Clerk Typist positions. (Ex. 27). In the event of a jobvacancy in that classification, the City’s practice was to first offer interviews to theemployees on the transfer list before posting the position in accordance with the CivilService Rules. Placement on a transfer list does not guarantee that an employee will behired, but does ensure that they will be considered for vacancies prior to the position being posted.9. On July 16, 1997, the Eligible List Roster for the Police Records Clerk positionwas posted. The Complainant was third on the list. (Ex. 23).10. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant was offered the position of Police RecordsClerk. The Complainant attempted to contact the then-President of the Union, LoriButler, to ask questions regarding her status if she took the Police Records Clerk job, because she did not want to compromise her seniority or benefits as a result of thetransfer. Lori Butler was a 10 month employee, and was not working during the periodof time in late July and early August in which the Complainant attempted to contact her.On August 11, 1997, the Complainant accepted the Police Records Clerk positionwithout having talked to her Union.3
of 00

Leave a Comment

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