Objections Abound At Final UPSEU Hearing
by Hugh McQuaid | Feb 16, 2012 6:29am
(13) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, Legal
Sen. Joe Markley’s testimony to the Labor Relations Board was slow-going Wednesday as virtually every question posed to him by lawyer Barbara Resnick was met with a chorus of objections from a room full of lawyers.
The hearing was the last of a series necessitated by a petition by the United Public Service Employees Union to allow an election over who gets to represent a handful of bargaining groups currently represented by other unions.
The state and the incumbent unions have maintained that state employees essentially closed the window to switch unions when they voted to approve the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement and the bargaining unit agreements in August.
But Resnick, a lawyer for UPSEU, is hoping the labor board will consider the fact that Attachment H, the clause that includes the contract bar, wasn’t in the language of the agreement upon which state workers voted.
The attachment has become a contentious issue among union members, some of whom say they wouldn’t have voted for the agreement if they’d known it existed.
Wednesday’s hearing, held at a Labor Department building in Wethersfield, reflected that contention. It hiccuped and coughed over the finish line a full hour after the building was scheduled to close.
Over the course of the four-hour hearing, lawyers at times threw their hands in the air, groaned at questions, spoke over one another, and sometimes objected to questions before the questioner had finished asking them.
Labor Relations Board Chairwoman Patricia V. Low asked both sides several times to stop talking over each other, expressing concerns that the court reporter could not keep up with several people talking simultaneously.
Markley said he was asked by Resnick to testify and agreed because it seemed the union members weren’t being treated fairly. But most of the questions he was asked by Resnick were objected to immediately on grounds that they were irrelevant or blatantly leading the witness.
AFSCME lawyer William Gagne Jr. said many of Resnick’s questions were completely irrelevant to the proceedings, such as when she asked Markely whether he was aware of how Attachment H impacted the window to switch unions.
“What in God’s name is the relevancy of that?” he said, interrupting before Markley could answer.
Gagne also questioned whether Markley constituted an expert witness in the area of statute changes. He suggested that while he may be a state senator, Markley’s knowledge of the status of laws regarding union contracts was likely no better than anyone else’s.
“We could call the lady at the front and ask her what her knowledge is,” he said, referring to the woman working security at the building’s front desk.
When lawyers for the state and the unions got their chance to cross examine Markley, it was Resnick’s turn to object. After she objected several times to a question posed to Markley by attorney Saranne Murray, Low told her to rephrase her question.
“I’ll rephrase my question if I can be guaranteed I can ask the question without interference,” Murray responded, sounding exasperated.
At times, Markley looked amused by the back-and-forth, looking around the room and grinning after one of his answers was cut off. After a while he took to waiting for the objection before he started to answer.
After completing his testimony, Markley joked with a reporter that he was “not really sure of my own name at this point.”
“The percentage of the questions that were objected to gives you the feeling this was something of legalistic exercise,” he said.
Legalistic exercise or otherwise, the board will have to decide whether the absence of the attachment is cause to allow an election to switch unions to proceed.
Resnick said the vote should take place. She called on former P-4 Council President John Vitale, who testified he wouldn’t have voted for the agreement if he’d known about the attachment. She tried to enter as evidence an affidavit saying the same, and which was signed by hundreds of other members.
That suggestion was met with objections from several other lawyers, which Low sustained.
“Do you really think it’s relevant how many people say they wouldn’t have voted for it?” she asked.
The incumbent unions don’t deny that the attachment wasn’t in the written materials provided to employees, but rather say that it is standard boilerplate legal language that doesn’t change the SEBAC agreement. SEBAC lawyer Barry Scheinberg said state law is clear that the petition window closes once workers have a contract.
“Statute provides a contract bar. You can’t have an election when there’s a valid contract. That’s the whole enchilada,” he said.
Lawyers from all parties have until April 2 to file briefs for the case.
Tags: attachment H, sebac agreement, UPSEU, board of labor relations, barbara resnick, Markley
(13) Comments
posted by: perturbed | February 16, 2012 7:34am
You slimy SEBAC scum-bags.
April 2 now?
You’re just dragging this thing out for as long as you can to keep raking in our union dues every two weeks. It’s that simple.
A vote will be allowed, it’s inevitable. You have absolutely no credible legal defense to stand on.
State workers deserve a right to choose our unions more than once in 8 long years, and it’s unimaginable that the Labor Board will come to any other conclusion.
We ESPECIALLY deserve the right to ditch the very unions that gave up our pensions so you could pass a health care pooling bill in a secret backroom deal with Malloy.
If the Labor Board doesn’t agree, the only explanation would be that they are controlled by the very same parties to that backroom deal: Malloy and SEBAC.
Morally, how do you SEBAC union bosses justify your objections to our vote?
Isn’t it the role of a labor union to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE WORKERS THEY REPRESENT? How is it possible that you SEBAC union bosses, in the light of day, with no apparent shame, are fighting tooth and nail to PREVENT the rights of your workers?
How do you justify that?
Trivial, petty, legalistic arguments aside, what say you, Bob Krzys? How do you justify your efforts to stifle our rights? What about you, Bob Rinker? What’s your angle? Trying to protect us from ourselves? Leave the driving to you? How about you, Sal Luciano? What will you tell us is the justification for preventing our vote? Labor doesn’t deserve the right to choose their own union anymore? Is that really what you think? Ms. Peterson? Do you have any possible defense for your actions?
Please speak up, I can’t hear you.
(How pathetic you’ve become.)
—perturbed
posted by: Major Shmuck | February 16, 2012 9:10am
Troops, Major Shmuck has been present at every hearing. Major Shmuck has whitnessed Ms. Yalmini talking to the union lawyers and walking in to the hearing room with them while laughing and joking. Major Shmuck whitnessed her look at the union attorneys before answering Attorney Resnicks questions. All the while Attorney Dan Livingston smiled back at CSEA Rinker and Petterson like a child who did something very wrong but knows he is going to get away with it. Major Shmuck says, “I don’t think so!”.
Ms. Yalmini also noted that reports of unions placing cards on state worker’s cars on state property was brought to her attention and that she took the matter very seriously. Yet nothing was done??. Csea seiu president Patrice Peterson was smiling so big because it was csea seiu staff that placed them on the cars. If Yalmini is that upset, maybe she should talk to Peterson.
Great job Attorney Resnick! That hearing, at times, appeared to be a farce. but you stuck to your guns and acted like a professional.
As Major Shmuck says, “You can try to hide the truth all you want, but it will always surface to the top when given enough time!”
Way to go P-4 Members. The era of state and union corruption is soon coming to an end! Hopefully soon, state and state employees can work together for the betterment of Connecticut’s citizens and not make back room deals with the likes of union so called “Leaders” and politicians like Dano who spends money like a clone on chocolate…
posted by: Friend of the First Amendment | February 16, 2012 11:03am
What’s the difference between a tic and a lawyer? Tics fall off when they’ve had their fill of blood.
AFSCME’s lawyer William Gagne Jr. – “’We could call the lady at the front and ask her what her knowledge is,’ he said, referring to the woman working security at the building’s front desk.” If the lady at the front desk rather than lawyers were permitted to write laws, they would be fairer and more equitable for ladies at the front desk and less so for lawyers.
Markey was probably amused because he is a Shakespeare groupie:
In Henry IV (Part II), Dick the Butcher, a supporter of the anarchist, Jack Cade, exclaims, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
The mind wanders at such moments to dark thoughts backlit with humor.
posted by: Matt W. | February 16, 2012 12:02pm
So the 150lb pittbull you raised to be a vicious attack dog has turned around and bitten you. Good luck getting him out the door. I’m sure the next one will be much better. HAHAHA!
posted by: Raoul Duke | February 16, 2012 12:39pm
Does UPSEU have a clue about anything? Joe Markley, no friend of state employees (or their jobs, pay, or benefits) is their secret weapon? I would feel bad for the state employees who are supporting this UPSEU stuff, but they’ve made it pretty clear they don’t care public service.
posted by: Major Shmuck | February 16, 2012 2:27pm
Major Shmuck, along eith the majority of P-4 will take UPSUE over the corrupt csea seiu any day. As far as Senator Markley, he has already noted that the he and the unions do not always see eye to eye. But on this issue, where members rights are being trampled on by union leaders, you Better believe we see eye to eye. I, like many of my fellow servicemen and women, swore an oath to protect citizens foriegn and domestic. Our union leaders have gone out of their way to shaft not only our union members, but citizns of the state of Connecticut! Well over 1600 members of P-4 have signed cards to go to UPSUE. More cards are coming in every day. CSEA SEIU puts out flyers and bad mouths members. They have even placed charges against members to quiet then down. News flash….It is not working!!!! If CSEASEIU is so good, then Mr. Rinker, call for a vote immediately. You should have nothing to worry about! Let the members VOTE! Look out your window, Mr. Rinker….Iceberg dead ahead…... Sound the alarm….
posted by: rankandfile | February 16, 2012 2:49pm
How sad and pathetic, to see SEBAC fighting to prevent their own members from having a free choice. Even worse, seeing them do it hand-in-hand with the administration. Long gone are the days when unions actually represented the wishes of their members.
posted by: StunningContradiction | February 16, 2012 5:07pm
As a member of P4 who is disgusted by the corrupt CSEA/SEIU I can’t wait for my chance to vote for a new union to represent me.
posted by: Major Shmuck | February 16, 2012 5:18pm
LET THE MEMBERS VOTE….LET THE MEMBERS VOTE….
OUR MEMBERS DEMAND THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
posted by: NOW What? | February 16, 2012 6:08pm
Yes SEBAC and its unions engaged in some bargaining-related screw-ups. And yes Barbara Resnick’s a real cutie (and a pretty good lawyer as well). And yes Republican politicians will do just about *anything* if it will gum-up things for Democrats. And if the Labor Board winds up ruling against UPSEU you can be SURE there will be some who will try to shout “CONSPIRACY!!!”
But none of that means that UPSEU will be any good for anyone, *especially* given what’s probably coming down the pike for State employees within the next couple of years. Better to start focusing on bargaining, political, PR and legal strategy now rather than switching unions at this point in time. The road ahead will be WAY too tough and complicated for UPSEU to handle. But yeah, I like Barb… 
BTW - This isn’t the first time UPSEU’s been before the CT Labor Board over such an issue…
posted by: andygayle | February 16, 2012 8:22pm
Major Shmuck, you are correct. Let the members vote. Why is CSEA/SEIU afraid of the vote.
posted by: Major Shmuck | February 16, 2012 9:42pm
Hey NowWhat…that is the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Really, try something new. Our so called leaders sold us out bigtime and you now say, wait, don’t be foolish, stay with them so they can screw you over yet again… Major Shmuck Says, “I don’t think so”.
AndyGayle they don’t want the vote, because they are scared to have the vote. They know there is no way they can rig it!
posted by: rankandfile | February 16, 2012 10:20pm
Hey, Now What, why are you opposed to letting your members decide for themselves? Maybe they choose UPSEU, maybe they choose to keep their current unions (though I can’t imagine why). Either way, it should be their choice, it shouldn’t be forced upon them for 10 years, or 15 years, or more. When was the last time state employees had a choice in who represents them, the 1980’s?