Outside Union Optimistic About Labor Petition
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 18, 2012 12:30pm
(10) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, Legal
Subpoenaed computer records indicate the controversial “Attachment H” to the state employee bargaining agreement was not finalized until after union members voted on it, according to a lawyer looking to call a union election.
The clause is being used to block employees trying to oust the current unions that represent them. Many employees complained that they never saw the attachment before they voted on the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement
Barbara Resnick, a lawyer for United Public Service Employees Union, said that’s because it wasn’t even finished yet.
Resnick said the computer records she subpoenaed from Labor Relations Director Linda Yelmini show that the file the attachment was typed in was not finalized until Aug. 18. Union members finished voting on the agreement the night before.
Resnick is hoping that the Board of Labor Relations will take that into consideration as it decides whether it will accept a petition by UPSEU to allow an election over who gets to represent a handful of bargaining groups currently represented by other unions.
“Now that there’s proof that the attachment wasn’t drafted before the vote, I think that should have bearing on the Labor Board’s decision,” she said.
J. William Gagne, an attorney representing one of the SEBAC unions, said Resnick’s statements alleging she had proven last week the attachment was drafted were inaccurate.
“The board will make the decision about when Attachment H was developed and whether it has any relevance or not,” he said.
He said he doesn’t believe the Labor Relations Board has the power to overturn the will of the General Assembly which accepted the agreement, including the attachment.
“The legislature could pass a statute saying there’s no more Labor Board and that’s the end of it,” Gagne said last week.
Resnick said she objects to the notion that the window to file an election petition closes simply because the General Assembly pre-voted on a matter.
She said she is not asking the board to overturn anything the legislature did, only to decide to allow an election based on a standard of good cause. If members didn’t actually get to vote on the provision that prevents them from switching unions, it should be considered, she said.
“Whether or not these members had any idea that after they voted someone was going to stick something in there to screw them, I think should certainly be considered in a good cause evaluation,” she said.
Resnick said the attachment itself should be deemed null because it is “fundamentally wrong” to hold workers to something they never approved.
The SEBAC unions have maintained the provision is standard legal language, which doesn’t allow any of the SEBAC membership to go after each others’ members.
Last month, in a similar case, the labor board sided with the union currently representing corrections officers. UPSEU’s sister union, the National Correction Employees Union, had also filed an election petition. However, the board said the union missed the window to file.
Resnick said she did not expect the board’s NCEU decision to impact her case, which she said was a “distinct” situation. Unlike the rest of the bargaining groups being contested, the petition window for the corrections workers would have been in August 2010.
The Labor Board will hold additional hearings on the UPSEU case on Feb. 9 and 15.
Tags: attachment H, sebac agreement, UPSEU, board of labor relations, barbara resnick, Hugh McQuaid
(10) Comments
posted by: rankandfile | January 18, 2012 2:19pm
It’s a shame SEBAC and the State oppose free choice for union members, but hopefully American democratic values will prevail.
posted by: perturbed | January 18, 2012 11:05pm
Where to begin? First, thanks is in order to Christine Stuart for being the only news editor willing to write this story. It was apparently squelched at all other news outlets.
Now to the hearing…
“Subpoenaed computer records indicate the controversial “Attachment H” to the state employee bargaining agreement was not finalized until after union members voted on it, according to a lawyer looking to call a union election.”
Actually, there’s more damning evidence that that: According to a first-hand account of the proceedings, Labor Relations Director Linda Yelmini, when questioned under oath, admitted that “Attachment H” had not been completed before the vote. She was not willing to perjure herself for the likes of the greedy union bosses.
So there we have it, official testimony corroborated by hard evidence that “Attachment H” was a fabricated afterthought.
“J. William Gagne, an attorney representing one of the SEBAC unions, said Resnick’s statements alleging she had proven last week the attachment was drafted were inaccurate.
“‘The board will make the decision about when Attachment H was developed and whether it has any relevance or not,’ he said.”
Really? In case anyone forgot all the way back to last week, LABOR RELATIONS DIRECTOR LINDA YELMINI ADMITTED UNDER OATH THAT “ATTACHMENT H” WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE THE VOTE. Does Gagme really expect us to believe the Labor Board will ignore the testimony of Labor Relations Director Linda Yelmini? He knows the evidence and the testimony, and yet he has the nerve to report to the press that they’re both “inaccurate”?
[These sleazy union boss lawyers have absolutely no shame.]
Then there’s the disruptive, disrespectful conduct of the union bosses and their lawyers. Apparently, the bank of lawyers for several unions and state agencies took turns objecting to every utterance from Barbara Resnick. And like over-eager game show contestants, they were caught at times raising objections before a question was even asked of a witness. How the Labor board puts up with this crowd I don’t understand.
As was commented after the last hearing in December, it seems unimaginable the Labor Board could side with the union bosses now.
—perturbed
posted by: perturbed | January 18, 2012 11:17pm
jonessAC12, are you reading this?
It’s now been established at a formal hearing of the labor board, with testimony and physical evidence, that “Attachment H” was not part of the ratified agreement.
Yet, from an earlier article on Attachment H:
”A member of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration said the clause was always part of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement, but it took many dissatisfied state employees looking to switch unions by surprise since it never appeared in their copy of the agreement.”
The identity of that administration official was later revealed to be none other than then-Deputy Undersecretary of the Office of Policy and Management Mark Ojakian.
How’s Ojakian’s character looking right about now?
Then, though we don’t known whether it’s directly attributable to his willingness to lie for the SEBAC/Malloy team, Ojakian was promoted to Chief of Staff.
Ojakian prostitutes himself for the team, then gets a reward.
A flying purple donkey…
(Geez, I must still be bitter about my union leaders giving up 20% of my promised pension to buy Malloy’s support for their prized pooling bill, and maybe other favors.)
—perturbed
posted by: perturbed | January 18, 2012 11:22pm
@rankandfile—I agree with you completely.
It’s easy to see why the sleazy union bosses and the sleazy union bosses’ lawyers would use dishonest, shameful tactics to keep the spigot of state worker dues flowing to their coffers, and to maintain the political clout of higher member numbers.
What’s still baffling is how they justify it, morally.
Actually, the longer and harder they keep fighting their losing battle to keep us from voting to escape their greedy clutches, the more transparent their motivations become, and the more obvious it will be to all members that we need to vote for our own freedom.
So keep fighting against our vote, Livingston!
Keep fighting againts our vote, Krzys!
Keep fighting against our vote, Rinker!
Keep fighting against our vote, Luciano!
Keep fighting against our vote, Peterson!
Your true motivations are becoming more and more obvious the more you fight against the rank-and-file’s right to choose our own unions.
—perturbed
posted by: Upset.Citizen | January 19, 2012 6:58am
@perturbed - You rock! I can’t add even one word!
2012 we will vote to go to UPSEU, 2014 Malloy and his band of thieves and liars will be voted out… See the future does look good!
posted by: rankandfile | January 19, 2012 11:25am
What worries me is what else “never appeared in their copy of the agreement.”
I remember seeing mention of an attachment I as well, though I’ve never seen it. And remember how the agreement when voted upon said if managers didn’t give up a portion of their longevity, rank and file members would get theirs as well? How was that changed after the second vote? Who changed it? How can hidden attachments and post-agreement language changes even be allowed to happen?
posted by: StateRep | January 19, 2012 10:48pm
Proud to have stood side-by-side with one hundred P4 union members. I find it amazing that other elected officials are so silent? Where is the Working Family party?
This is an obvious abuse of power from SEIU and their leadership.
Let’s stand united with members who deserve a vote.
State Rep. Christopher Coutu
posted by: rankandfile | January 20, 2012 12:00am
I’m sure the Working Family Party supports forced SEIU unionization of daycare workers and home health aides. That’s why Connecticut needs something like Senator Hatch’s Employee Rights Act.Regular recertification elections would end a lot of union abuses. Many state employees are fiscal conservatives, and would appreciate the paycheck protection part as well (no dues going to causes you don’t agree with)
posted by: perturbed | January 20, 2012 8:30pm
rankandfile wrote:
“What worries me is what else ‘never appeared in their copy of the agreement.’
I remember seeing mention of an attachment I as well, though I’ve never seen it. And remember how the agreement when voted upon said if managers didn’t give up a portion of their longevity, rank and file members would get theirs as well? How was that changed after the second vote? Who changed it? How can hidden attachments and post-agreement language changes even be allowed to happen?”
You raise excellent points.
And now being reminded in other news that other state employees of a lower rank are losing their jobs for dishonesty, I wonder what the just punishment would be for Ojakian’s dishonest dealings? (It’s difficult to imagine any other of Malloy’s henchmen being close enough to the “airtight” negotiations process to pull the old switcheroo with the agreement text.)
At a minimum, Ojakian should lose his job. (We have to hold state employees to a higher standard!) Most likely, he should lose his pension.
Instead, he got his four-figure longevity check. Whoever said crime doesn’t pay?
—perturbed
posted by: perturbed | January 20, 2012 8:31pm
jonessAC12, pardon my feeling vindicated: Ojakian’s a proven liar now.
Yours truly,
—perturbed