Share |

Connecticut Budget Targets IFPTE Members - Union Urges Veto

Following passage earlier this month by the Connecticut legislature of an anti-union budget targeting state and local government workers, IFPTE wrote a letter this week to Governor Dannell Malloy urging him to veto the bill, telling him that the budget, “unnecessarily targets public servants throughout Connecticut and attacks their unions, including those represented by IFPTE.” Read the full letter below.


September 25, 2017

Honorable Dannell Malloy
State Capitol
210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Governor Malloy,

On behalf of the 145 members represented by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 136-13, who are employed as paraeducators in the town of Newtown, I am writing to urge you to veto the recently passed budget (HB 7501) by the Connecticut legislature. This budget, which narrowly passed the House and Senate on September 15th and 16th, respectively, carries serious implications for Local 136-13's collective bargaining unit and unions in general around your State.

Below are some of the more offensive provisions in the budget that are particularly troublesome to IFPTE:

1. Makes significant changes to municipal collective bargaining, including:

  • Allows municipalities to reopen collective bargaining agreements to enact regional consolidation or shared services, i.e. regionalization;
  • Allows municipalities to reopen collective bargaining agreements to negotiate savings in the event that state education aid is reduced by more than 10%;
  • Allows towns to reopen collective bargaining agreements when “changes are needed to effectuate consolidation or shared services agreements;”
  • Prohibits collective bargaining agreements from prohibiting the use of volunteers (i.e. parents, students, etc.) to perform bargaining unit work.

2. Changes how municipal collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards are approved:

  • If an agreement is rejected by a municipal legislative body, rather than return to bargaining, it moves directly to arbitration.
  • If the municipal legislative body fails to vote on a collective bargaining agreement within 30 days, it is deemed rejected (current statute deems it approved).
  • If an arbitration award is rejected by the legislative body, the matter shall be returned for further arbitration with the second award deemed approved.

3. Makes significant changes to binding arbitration, including:

  • Extends the time by which the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration must come to a decision in an arbitration case from 20 days to 60 days;
  • Requires municipal unions to provide last best offer and briefs within one year of the date arbitration was imposed;
  • Requires the use of neutral state arbitrators to be selected at random; and
  • Shields municipal reserve fund balances of 15% or less from consideration for payment of an arbitration award (currently 117 municipalities have fund balances of 15% or less).

4. Establishes a Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB) and ranks municipalities in Tiers 1 through 4, according to their financial health. With regards to collective bargaining, MARB may.

  • Review all collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards in Tier 3 municipalities to monitor compliance with a three-year financial plan.
  • Reject new collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards in Tier 4 municipalities if MARB believes they do not comply with a three-year financial plan. MARB must indicate the reasons for rejection and may indicate the total acceptable cost impact or savings in a new MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES agreement. Parties are given 10 days to propose a modified agreement. If parties can’t reach agreement or MARB rejects a modified agreement, MARB shall set the terms of the agreement, which shall be binding.
  • For binding arbitration in Tier 4 municipalities, MARB can impose arbitration, serve as the arbitration panel and shorten arbitration timelines.

5. Does not include additional funding to prevent bankruptcy for the City of Hartford.

6. Requires all Board of Education employment contracts with administrative personnel (including amendments and wage modifications) to be filed with the town clerk, and with all town clerks in the case of regional districts.

In short, this budget unnecessarily targets the public servants throughout Connecticut and attacks their union, including those represented by IFPTE. Please veto this bill.


Gregory J Junemann


9/28/2017 - Malloy Vetoes Budget, Seeks 'Honest Dialogue' (theCt Mirror)

IFPTE Local 136_13 Letter to Governor Malloy

< View All News