Common Council

COMMON COUNCIL MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARBITRATION THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2025 6:00 PM MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Common Council of the City of Middletown, A Workshop on Collective Bargaing Arbitration, was held on Thursday, July 24, 2025, at 6:00 PM. This meeting was hybrid: in-person in the Common Council Chamber and remotely accessible via WebEx. The meeting was also livestreamed on the City’s website, on local cable television, and on the City’s Facebook page. Present: Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell Councilman Anthony Mangiafico Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. Councilman Jonathan Pulino Councilman Darnell Ford Councilwoman Linda Salafia Councilman Anthony Gennaro, Sr. Councilwoman Leslie Spatola Councilman Steven Kovach Councilwoman Kelly Sweeney Councilman Vincent Loffredo Also Present: Hon. Eugene P. Nocera, Interim Mayor Parliamentarian: Kelly Scott, Esq. Sergeant-at-Arm, Middletown Police Officer Davis Linda Reed, Clerk of the Common Council Public: Chamber: 0 WebEx: 5 Facebook: unknown 1. Call to Order The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6:22 PM. He welcomes everyone to the Common Council Regular Meeting, The Chair welcomes the Councils guest presenter for this workshop, Patrick McHale, Esq.,of Kainen, Escalara, & McHale, PC of Hartford, CT. A. Pledge of Allegiance The Chair invites everyone to join and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. B. Council Clerk Reads the Call of the Meeting and Mayor declares call a legal call and meeting a legal meeting The Clerk of the Common Council reads the Call of the Meeting and the Chair declares the call a legal call and the meeting a legal meeting. 2. Presentation & Councilmember Question & Answer Session: Collective Bargaining Arbitration Process Attorney Patrick McHale of Kainen, Escalara, & McHale, PC, Hartford, CT presents to the Common Council and provides an opportunity for Councilmembers to ask questions. JULY 24, 2025 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 2 WORKSHOP; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARBITRATION CONNECTICUT MUNICIPAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING1 July 24, 2025 _____________________ Patrick J. McHale Kainen, Escalera & McHale, P.C. 21 Oak Street, Suite 601 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 493-0870 Facsimile: (860) 493-0871 Email: pmchale@kemlaw.com www.kemlaw.com 00117240 A. THE ROLE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE The municipal chief executive is assigned the primary responsibility for collective bargaining with municipal employees in Section 7-474(a) of the Act: Except as hereinafter provided, when an employee organization has been designated, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7-467 to 7-477, inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, the chief executive officer, whether elected or appointed, or his designated representative or representatives, shall represent the municipal employer in collective bargaining with such employee organization. The Labor Board has emphasized that this responsibility belongs to the executive and is not to be shared or controlled by the legislative body. The drafters of the statute deliberately restricted the role of the legislative body and placed primary responsibility upon the chief executive… …The refusal of the chief executive to enter into an agreement with the employee organization without prior approval of the legislative body constitutes a refusal to bargain in compliance with the statute. Town of Groton, Decision No. 806 (1968). The statute explicitly provides that the power to negotiate and conclude a collective bargaining agreement is vested in the chief executive officer or his designated representative. City of Stamford, Decision No. 874 (1969). The executive may consult with the legislative body to determine the range of possible negotiation alternatives: In performing his duty of bargaining, the chief executive may and, as a practical matter, must consult with the legislative body to get some idea of what will be the range of realistic salaries. Town of Hamden, Decision 1005 (1971). 1 This summary of the roles of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Body in Connecticut municipal collective bargaining is derived in large part from the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) Manual 2021 Edition. JULY 24, 2025 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 3 WORKSHOP; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARBITRATION The executive can conclude a collective bargaining agreement, which will be binding on the municipality without any legislative action or approval if no additional funds are needed and if there are no conflicts with municipal law and regulations. Under Section 7-474 the chief executive officer or his designated representative is charged with the responsibility of negotiating with the employee organization and empowered with the authority to conclude a collective bargaining agreement. No action of the legislative body is required to make that agreement binding except where additional funds are necessary to implement the agreement or provisions of the agreement are in conflict with the provisions of the charter, special acts, ordinances, rules or regulations adopted by the municipal employer. Town of Groton, supra. If a negotiated agreement contains no conflicts with any charter, special act, ordinance, rule or regulation of the town, and no new appropriation of funds is necessary to implement the agreement, then it becomes binding without submission to the legislative body. Town of New Milford, Decision No. 740 (1967). B. THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY The legislative role is limited, particularly in the initial stages of the bargaining process. The legislative body does, however, retain a critical role in its ultimate power over the budget and in its authority to reject agreements that conflict with municipal ordinances and regulations. The legislative role is set forth in Section 7-474(b) of the Act: Any agreement reached by the negotiators shall be reduced to writing. Except where the legislative body is the town meeting, a request for funds necessary to implement such written agreement and for approval of any provisions of the agreement which are in conflict with any charter, special act, ordinance, rule or regulation adopted by the municipal employer or its agents, such as a personnel board or civil service commission, … shall be submitted by the bargaining representative of the municipality within fourteen days of the date on which such agreement is reached to the legislative body which may approve or reject such request as a whole by a majority vote of those present and voting on the matter; but, if rejected, the matter shall be returned to the parties for further bargaining. Failure by the bargaining representative of the municipality to submit such request to the legislative body within such fourteen-day period shall be considered to be a prohibited practice committed by the municipal employer. Such request shall be considered approved if the legislative body fails to vote to approve or reject such request within thirty days of the end of the fourteen-day period for submission to said body. The most significant aspect of this part of the Act is that it limits the role of the legislative body to proceed after negotiations have produced an agreement, since the municipal bargaining role belongs to the chief executive alone. The legislative body cannot require the executive to receive prior approval of the positions taken by the executive at the bargaining table or agreements that he or she makes. The refusal of the chief executive to enter into an agreement with the union without prior approval of the municipal legislative body constitutes a refusal to bargain in compliance with the statute. Town of Groton, Decision No. 806 (1968). The chief executive or negotiator is not legally bound by prior actions or pronouncements of the legislative or budget-making authority. Town of Watertown, Decision No. 1381 (1976). If political action is taken in advance of agreement, that may have the effect of a caveat to negotiators but it cannot preempt their statutory function. After bargaining and agreement the Act provides for an ultimate political check on the cost of the bargain. City of New London, Decision No. 1372 (1976), in which a taxpayer referendum during negotiations was held not to bind the negotiators. And the legislative body cannot remove any subject from the bargaining process by ordinance or otherwise. JULY 24, 2025 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 4 WORKSHOP; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARBITRATION While the legislative body may not control the bargaining process, it can be informed of the proceedings through consultations with the chief executive. The executive may consult with the legislative body to appraise the possibility that a given proposal would meet with its approval. Town of Hamden, Decision No. 1005 (1971). Since collective bargaining frequently extends beyond municipal budget deadlines, an appropriation may already have been made which will cover the subsequent agreement. And if the agreement contains no conflict with municipal law or regulations, no further approval by the legislative body is necessary and the agreement is binding. If a negotiated agreement contains no conflicts with any charter, special act, etc., of the town, and no new appropriation of funds is necessary to implement the agreement, then it becomes binding without submission to the legislative body. Town of Milford, Decision No. 740 (1967). An appropriation of funds obviously intended to implement an agreement but placed in a contingency fund, where the only contingency was later approved by the legislative body on other matters, has been held to be final approval of the request for funds. Town of Milford, supra. If a bargaining agreement is rejected by the legislature, it must then be returned to the executive and the employee organization for further bargaining. If the legislative body disapproves of a negotiated agreement, it is required by the Act to return the matter to the parties for further bargaining. Since it is the city’s act which has frustrated the earlier negotiations, it is clearly the city which must take the initiative in returning the matter. City of Putnam, Decision No. 1231 (1974). And the legislative body should provide the parties with some general information as to why the agreement was rejected and what might be accepted in a future agreement. Where the proposed agreement contains a number of conflicts with a municipal charter, ordinances or regulations, rejection by the legislative body because of one, without any consideration of the others, has the effect of remanding the agreement for further bargaining without adequate guide to the employer’s bargaining representative as to what changes may be necessary to win approval. This does not mean the legislative body must give a definite answer on each conflict but it does require that the Council give sufficient consideration to further the process of reaching an agreement. City of Norwich, supra. Since the Commission Council, on June 18, 2025 voted to reject the settlement reached by the Mayor with the Local 6457 of the United Public Service Employees’ Union bargaining unit, the matter has been returned to the Mayor and the Union’s representatives to either resume negotiations, or at the insistence of either party, to commence binding interest arbitration proceedings. As part of the interest arbitration process the Mayor shall have the authority to decide what issues to raise in arbitration and further to decide upon the City of Middletown’s last best offer on each such issue. The interest arbitration panel must accept the last best offer of either the City or the Union on each issue in dispute. The Council, by a two-thirds vote, may reject an award of the interest arbitration panel. In such event the matter is referred to a second interest arbitration panel whose authority is to either accept or reject the award of the first arbitration panel on each open issue. Importantly, no hearings are held by the second panel (consisting of one or three arbitrators as determined by the parties). Such panel is limited to reviewing the record created by the first arbitration panel in addition to the reasons stated by the legislative body for rejecting the initial award as well as the Union’s responses to such reasons. 3. Workshop Concludes There being no further discussion, the Chair closes the presentation and Q&A session at 7:23 PM. JULY 24, 2025 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 5 WORKSHOP; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARBITRATION 4. Meeting Adjourned Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell moves to adjourn. Councilman Jonathan Pulino seconds the motion. There being no discussion, the Chair calls for a voice vote. The motion is unanimously approved with 11 aye votes. (AYES: Councilmembers Blackwell, Faulkner, Ford, Gennaro, Kovach, Loffredo, Mangiafico, Pulino, Salafia, Spatola, and Sweeney.) The matter is approved. The meeting is adjourned at 7:24 PM. ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK K: review/ minutes/ 2025 July 24 – special meeting – workshop: collective bargaining arbitration – 24 July 2025