Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pratt Appeal Decision

Pratt Appeal Decision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 396|Likes:
Published by Republican-American
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Thursday upheld a federal judge's ruling that said the subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. failed to make every reasonable effort to avoid shutting two engine repair plants in the state.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Thursday upheld a federal judge's ruling that said the subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. failed to make every reasonable effort to avoid shutting two engine repair plants in the state.

More info:

Published by: Republican-American on Jul 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





10-0702-cvDistrict Lodge 26 v. United Technologies Corp.
1UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS2FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT3August Term, 200945(Argued: June 9, 2010Decided: July 8, 2010)6Docket No. 10-0702-cv7-------------------------------------8DISTRICT LODGE 26, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS &9AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO,10Plaintiff-Appellee,11- v. -12UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY,13Defendant-Appellant.14-------------------------------------15Before:MINER, SACK, and HALL, Circuit Judges.16Appeal from a judgment of the United States District17Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, Judge).18Following a bench trial, the district court issued a declaratory19judgment to the effect that the defendant's announced plans to20close two facilities in Connecticut and move the work performed21at those facilities outside the State violated the collective22bargaining agreement between the company and the plaintiff union.23The district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the24company from implementing the plans during the term of the25collective bargaining agreement, which ends later this year.26Affirmed.
21ALLAN B. TAYLOR (Steven M. Greenspan and2Douglas W. Bartinik, on the brief), Day3Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendant-4Appellant.5GREGG D. ADLER (Mary E. Kelly, on the6brief), Livingston, Adler, Pulda,7Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C., Hartford, CT,8for Plaintiff-Appellee.9RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Attorney General of10Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for amicus11curiae State of Connecticut.12SACK, Circuit Judge:1314The defendant-appellant United Technologies15Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division ("Pratt"), appeals from a16February 18, 2010, declaratory judgment issued by the United17States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C.18Hall, Judge) following a five-day bench trial. The court held19that Pratt's announced plans to close two of its airplane engine20overhaul and repair facilities in Connecticut and move the work21performed at those facilities out of the State violated its22currently-in-force collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA")23with the plaintiff-appellee, District Lodge 26 of the24International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,25AFL-CIO ("District Lodge" or the "Union"). The court enjoined26the implementation of those plans during the remaining term of27the CBA. The court concluded that the plans fail to comply with28one of the thirty-four "Letters of Agreement" incorporated by29reference in the CBA, "Letter 22," which requires Pratt to "make30every reasonable effort to preserve" work performed by members of31the Union, and which defines "every reasonable effort" to include
The State participates in this appeal as amicus curiae.
31"pursuing actively and in good faith the goal of preserving the2work" and assigning "extra value" in its decision-making to3choices that would preserve the work. Letter 22, at
Section 2.4The district court based its conclusion that in5developing and seeking to implement the closure plans, Pratt was6not pursuing, in good faith, the goal of preserving work within7the bargaining unit on a wide variety of factual findings, many8of which are not challenged on appeal and none of which, we9conclude, were clearly erroneous. These findings include: that10Pratt exhibited an unwillingness to consider alternative plans11that would not generate annual recurring savings through 2013;12that it refused to measure savings under any metric other than13earnings before interest and tax ("EBIT"); that it abandoned14negotiations with the State of Connecticut, which hoped to15persuade Pratt not to remove work from the State; and that it
16failed to accord "extra value" to options that would avoid17closing the Connecticut facilities in question before developing18and proposing plans to do so.19The district court concluded that Pratt had not made,20and was not making, "every reasonable effort" to preserve21bargaining unit work as required by the CBA. We find no error in22the district court's application of the fact-intensive inquiry23bargained for by the parties in Letter 22 or in the district24court's determination that Pratt failed to pursue the goal of

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->