STATE OF CONNECTICUT

LABOR DEPAKTMENT
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

In the matter of :
:
DISTRICT 1199, NATIONAL UNION OF :
HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES : Case No. SUPP-5543
AND THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION :
:
- and - :
:
CONNECTICUT EMPLOYEES UNION :
"INDEPENDENT", INC. :
:
In the matter of :
:
CONNECTICUT STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION : Case No. SUPP-5621
:
- and - :
: Decision No. 1951
CONNECTICIJT EMPLOYEES UNION :
"INDEP~PD~MT"
Y 1 ._) , IVV. : October 20, 1980

AP
- -P - Em A- R- AeN-C-E-S -:
Edward T. Lynch, Jr., Esq.,
for CEUI
John M. Creane, Esq.,
for District 1199
Robert J. Krzys, Esq.,
for CSEA

DECISION
and
DISMISSAL OF COiWWII\!TS
On December 17, 1979 the Connecticut Employees Union
"Independent", Inc. (CEUI) filed with the Connecticut State Board
of Labor Relations (Board) a complaint (SUPP-5543) alleging that
District 1199, National Unicn of Hospital and Health Care 'Employees,
under the title of Public EmnloyeesxFederntion (PEF), a confedera-
tion of District 1199, Service Emoloyees International Union, and
Hotel and Restaurant Emoloyees Union, began a public campaign to
oust the CEUI as exclusive bargaining agent for the NP-2 State
employee bargaining unit. The CEilI alleges violations of the
State Employee Relations Act (Act) in that PEF:
used misleading or false publications and information;
[:] k nowingly conducted a campaign during the course of
ongoing collective bargaining;
(cl conducted a campaigns during the effective period of
a bargaining agreement;
(d) engaged in a campaign prior to the recognized window
period;
interfered with the bargaining process;
i Y1 interfered with the right of CEUI to act for and on
behalf of the employees it represents;
(lx? conspired with certain stewards, agents, and a former
officer of CXJI to foment discord, and interfere
[#it!: the cc!.1 rcttve b:!?.~~i.nl.r7y: process.
 On February 5, 1980, CEUI filed with the Board a complaint
SUPP-5621) against the Connecticut State Employees Association
CSEA) which was substantially identical to that outlined above.
The complaints were consolidated by the Agent of the Board, and
were brought before the Board for hearing on May 21, 1980. All
parties appeared on that date, were represented by counsel, and
were fully heard.
At the hearing, the Board requested that CEUI file an offer
of proof and that the parties file briefs on the question of
whether the facts alleged in such offer, if proven, could support
CEUI's claims that respondents had engaged in prohibited practices
under the Act. On June 19, 1983, CEUI filed its Offer of Proof
with the Board and briefs were subsequently filed by all parties.
Based upon CEUI's Offer of Proof, including proposed exhibits
(the offer of proof is reprinted below without exhibits), the
Board makes the following conclusions of law, discussion and order.
OFFER OF PROOF
CONNECTICUT EMPLOYEES UNION "INDEPENDENT"
xxx
The CEUI Inc. (CEUI) is a labor organization
withiA*the mean& of the State Employee Relations Act (Act).
2. The Connecticut State Employees Association (CSEA)
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. District 1199, National Union of Hospital and
Health Care Employees is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
4. The Public Employee Federation (PEF) is not a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act, but is
a confederation of District ?199, Service Employees Inter-
national Union and Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union.
5. On October 4, 1978, the State Board of Labor
Relations (SBLR) issued Decision No. 1686 (SE-4725) which
directed elections be held ,to determine the exclusive
representative for collective bargaining of all employees
in, inter alia, the NP-2 Unit (Maintenance and Service Unit).
6. On November 14, 15 and 16, 1978, an election was
conducted in Case No. SE-4725, and on November 17, 1978,
Board Agent John W. Kingston filed a Report Upon Secret
Ballot (Ex. No. 7).
7. On or about November 27, 1978, the CSEA filed a
Motion to Set Aside and Objections to Election (Ex. No. 8)
in Case No. SE-4725.
On or about December 7 1978 the CSEA withdrew its
objections to the conduct of th& Unit'NP-2 election (Ex.
No. 9).
9. On January 4, 1979, in Decision No. 1686-C, the
SBLR certified the CEUI as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the classifications composing Unit NP-2.
The designation took effect: II(l) forthwith, for the purpose
of negotiating a successor to the existing contract covering
said employees.ti (6x. No. IO).
10. On January 16, 1979, the CEUI, through its Chief
'. Negotiator, Edward T. Lynch, Jr., requested that the State
commence negotiating with the CEUI.

-2-
 11. Thereafter, negotiating sessions were held \
\
regularly until the presentation of the proposed contract
for vote on or about March 20, 1980. Negotiating sessions
were not held from approximately January 3 through February
29, 1980, while the parties were at issue before the fact-
finder (See paragraphs 16, 1'7 below).
12. On August 24, 1979, Peter Allen, Chief Negotiator
for the State, requested that the State Board of Mediation
and Arbitration initiate factfinding in accordance with
Connecticut General Statute Section 5-277(a) (Ex. No. 14).
13. On or about September 26, 1979, and October 2,
+.-- 1979, the State and the CEUI entered into an Agreement
----.--. extending the contract (Ex. No. II) in effect July 1, 1977,
through June 30, 1979, until a successor agreement was reached.
14. On November 5, 1979, Peter R. Blum was appointed
factfinder in Case No. 798O-CSFF-6 (Ex. No. 16) and on
November 26, 1979, Peter R. Blum withdrew from the position
of factfinder (Ex. No. 18).
On December 3 1979 David Weinstein was appointed
factf%er in Case No. ?980-Ch?-6.
16. Factfinding sessions were held on January 3, 4,
10, 11 and 31, 1980, and February 1, 1980, at which hearings
both parties presented evidence to factfinder Weinstein.
17. On or about February 11, 1980, the State and the
CEUI submitted briefs to the factfinder, and on February 29,
1980, the factfinder filed his report (Ex. No. 22).

la. The proposed contract was approved by an over-

whelming majority of maintenance unit employees voting
between March 20 and April 17, 1980, and the contract was
accepted by the Legislature on April 23, 1980.
19. Between Sep-tzmber 26, 1979, and the first fact-
finding session on January 3, 1980, approximately 14 meetings
were held many of which were at the Labor Department. Several
involved mediation efforts by A. D. Joseph Emerzian, Chairman
of the Connecticut Board of Mediation and Arbitration, some
involved mediation efforts by Joseph Peraro, Commissioner of
Labor, and several were lengthy negotiating sessions.
20. Towards the eni of November, 1979, well within one
year from the certificatioil of the CEUI as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative and during times of intense and
lengthy negotiating sessions between the State and the CEUI,
the PEF began a public campaign to oust the CEUI as the NP-2
bargaining agent (Ex. No. 24, Proposed Ex. 33).
21. According to its own flyer, the PEF is an affilia-
tion of three AFL-CIO unions: District 1199, Service
Employees International Union and Hotel and Restaurant
Employees Union. (Ex. No. 24).
22. As part of its campaign to oust the CEUI, the
PEF has utilized fliers to disparage, disrupt and harass
the CEUI and its efforts to negotiate a contract. The
publications also focused on petitioning for a new election
--an organizing campaign-- errcn as the CEUI continued nego-
tiating (Ex. Nos. 24, 25 and Proposed Ex. Nos. 26 through
40, attached).
23. The PEF publications allege, inter- - alia! that
"The 8,500 Service and Maintenance Employees are in SeriOUS
trouble,l' (EEx. 24) tlint tilci*c is disuk ty ill ,thu miilli;~l?~iiC~
unit, (Ex. 24) that a secret or private deal existed between

-3-
the State and the CEUI's President, Sal Perruccio, (Pro-
posed Ex. 29, 30) that the Independent is in a "shambles",
that the Independent Union is allowing the State to delay
the maintenance contract (Proposed 2:. 39) that there is
no advantage for the workers in a three year contract,
that maintenance employees rights are in danger (Proposed
Ex. 29), that the Independent should be disowned and
repudiated (Ex. 24).
24. Many of the PEF publications acknowledge in their
own text that negotiations are ongoing yet they continue to
deride CEUI efforts and to encourage discontent within the
CEUI.
25. The publications and actions outlined below
clearly, admittedly constitute an organizational campaign
aimed at the ouster of the CEUI by way of a new election
(Ex. 24, 25, Proposed Ex. 28, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40).

26. Many-_ of the publications have contained misrepre-

sentations, falsehoods, or misleading statements regarding
the conduct and intentions of the CEUI and manv allened.
then second-guessed and criticized contract terms whzch'
were not yet settled and which were in fact on the table
or before the factfinder.
27. The PEF has utilized the media to publicize its
intentions to campaign for the ouster of the CEUI and to
create the appearance and impression that the CEUI is not
performing its bargaining duty with the utmost fidelity and
good faith. (Proposed Ex. 41, Journal -I In?uircr, November
26, 1979; Prouosed B. 42, Norwich Dull .ecl.n, ldovember 30,
1979; Propose3 Ex. 43, - Hartm
-- Courant :, ldovember 26, 1979;
Proposed Ex. 44, Hartfora Co\:r:xnt, - - . XiZmber 27, 1979; Pro-
posed Ex. 45, Ha&?-G?:nl:, I!ovember 28, 1979; Proposed
Ek. 46, Middl.2torm Prasc x&ber 23. 1979: Pronosed Ex.
47, ---filidd?ko :,~n ?rf-~2, liovernber 24, 1979;rFroposed~Ex. 481
Middj.eto!m i'r’!3ss l i:ovember 27. 1979; Pronosed E;c. 49, Middle-
t o w n Prcr;s ) i;ov&Uer 28, 19791 Propcsed &x. 50, Miliimantic
Chronicle, I,!ovember 27, 1979; Proposed Ex. 51, Willimantic
Chronicle, November 28, 1979).
28. The PEF has distributed and solicited application
cards (Ex. 25) as well as petitions in its effort to gain a
new election and the ouster of the CEUI.
29. The PEF has also influenced and organized various
stewards, agents and former Vice-President Wallace Arseneault
of the CEUI to actively campaign and recruit CEUI menibers to
transfer to the "PEF".- (Proiosed Ex. 52, Willimantic Chronicle,
tecemem;; 5, 19'79; Proposed Ex. 53, Hartforu Courant, Deceniier
, . (See also, paragraph 37 below)
30. The PEF publicized and held a press conference on
January 29, 1980, at the Student Union Building, UCONN, to
announce the formation of an organizing committee of employees
committed to campaign for PEF and against the CEUI. (Pro-
posed Ex. 54, xuir;antic Chronicle, January 26, 1980; Pro-
%':!.I1 : ~:.;nt i n Ci?roni.cle, January 30, 1980; Pro-
posed Ex. 55, +---;IL-
posed Ex. 56, HartIoro Cowrant, January 30, 1980).
31. In se-veral instances agents of the PEP have held
organizational meetings or attended CEUI contract-discussion
meetings with the express and deliberate purpose' of deriding
the negotiation efforts of the CEiJI and of having maintenance
employees endorse the PEF. On December 4, 1979, a PDF agent
attended a conl;ract mcetin g at the University of Connecticut
School of Law .to cti~,~pa&,~ +;ui;I<,k -t:lz iBiJI (Proyoscd Ex. 5'7,
and testimony of Steven Perruccio and David Chapman).
-4-
 32. On or about February 10, 1980, the PEF held a
statewide meeting to organize maintenance employees by the
signing of cards, at which meeting PEF agents made allega-
tions of illegalities art of the CEUI and its
officers/agents. (Propgieih&p 26, 58, testimony of John
Satti).
33. On or about January 16, 1980, District 1199
organizer Robert Callahan chaired an organizational meeting
at the Merlin Bishop Center at UCONN for the purpose of dis-
paraging the CEUI, of promoting further the idea that tithe
CEUI was incapable of negotiating a contract, and of organ-
izing the maintainers by the solicitation of intent cards.
-----lag.. -._ (Proposed Ex. 59, 60, 61 and testimony of John Brown, R.
Susan Chappa, Mark McComber and others).
34. On or about January 9, 1980, through January 16,
1980, an agent of District 1199 and/or PEF approached main-
tainers on the job at the UCONM Motor Pool and alleged CEUI
illegalities while campaigning for PEF (Proposed Ex. 61,
testimony of Mark McComber and others).
35. Other employees were approached by 1199 agents
while on the 'ob and were solicited for membership in 1199
and/or PEF. t Proposed Ex. 62, testimony of Haysteen
Nickelson and others).
36. On or about December, 1979, 1199 delegate Charmine
Dubrino, an employee at Seaside Regional Center, solicited
intent cards on behalf of 1?99 and/or PEF at the Motor
Vehicle office in New London.
37. In late October, 1979, or early November, 1979,
staff reoresentative Bob Warfield of 1109 contacted CEUI
negotiating team member and Chief Steward S-,1 Chilone re-
garding meeting with 1199 President Jerry Brown. Sal
Chilone met with Jerry Brown at which time Brown advised
that 1199 would try to take over the maintenance unit, was
about to distribute intent cards, and had some members of
the CEUI negotiating committee and the CEUI Vice-President
Wallace Arseneault in its "hip pockettf. Brown suggested
that it would be very difficult for the CEUI to settle a
contract. Chilone refused a request to switch his allegiance
to 1199.
38. Subsequent to the commencement of the PEF bid to
dust the CEUI and to prevent CEdI from achieving a contract,
the CSEA in December, 1979, began its own campaipn to solicit
intent cards from CEUI members to gain new elections, (Pro-
posed Ex. 63, Middle-town Press, December 27, 1979; Proposed
Ex. 64, 65, 66, and 6?7
39. On or about February 8, 1980, Marie King, Staff
Representative of CSEA, solicited cards from laundry
employees at Connecticut Valley Hospital and represented
that CSEA would be elected and would be negotiating a new
contract on their behalf.
40. On or about January and February , 1980, Ernest
Canosa, CSEA Chapter President from Southern Cornecticut
State College, called and presided over meetings on various
state college campuses including Central, Eastern and
Western to disparage CEUI negotiating ,cfforts and to en-
courage a showing of dissatisfaction by the signing of
intent cards, Some such meetings were called under the
guise of an official CEUI meeting. (Proposed Ex. 66, 67).
41. Subsequent to and as a result of the campaigns
of the PEF 111d CSA IA dizici*c:tiLi.t and dirpurage the CEUI
and to achieve the decertificntion of the CBUI, there

-5-
 occurred a drastic increase in the number of phone calls
to the office of the CEUI in Middletown and to the rcsi-
dences of its officers and agents at all hours of the
night and during weekends and holidays. Many of the
callers asked of the truth of various 1199 and CSXA alle-
gations and suggestions that the contract would or would
not include various clauses. Specifically, there were
questions regarding the existence of an 1199 negotiating
committee, the possible loss-Q of health benefits, longevity,
increments and retroactive pay due to the extended nego-
tiations.
42. As a result of the confusion and discontent
fomented by the CSEA, PEF and 1199, the CEUI was forced
to hire new staff members and to divert existing staff
from other duties to rebut and counter all charges. Pro-
tracted negotiations were thereby further prolonged to
the disadvantage of CEUI. Additionally, it was necessary
for the CEUI to install a new and more sophisticated system
to accommodate the drastic increase in calls. Furthermore,
the confusion and discontent caused by the actions of the
CSEA and 1199 required the CXJI to draft, print and dis-
tribute its own pamphlet s and other literature to correct
any misconceptions due to the misleading and false state-
ments of CSEA, 1199 and PEF. The additional cost to the
CEUI ranged between 820,OCO.OO and $30,000.00.
43. As a further result of the campaigns of CSEA and
PEF and the disruption and harassment caused thereby, the
CEUI bargaining stance and credibility were significantly
weakened and the intense, good faith efforts of many months
of negotiating were jeopardized.
xxx

Conclusions of Law
1. The conducting of an organizational campaign by PEF for
the NP-2 bargaining unit, while C.WI was conducting collective
bargaining negotiations, did not constitute a violation of the Act.
2. The statements made by PEF in its organizational campaign
did not violate tie Act, unless the statements were false and were
made with either knowledge of their falsity or with reckless dis-
regard for their truth or falsity.
3. Since no allegation has been made in CZUI's Offer of Proof
that PEF's statements were made with either knowledge of falsity or
with reckless disregard for their tru-th or falsity, there is no
violation of the Act.
Discussion
The following paragraph from CEUI's brief states the essence
of its claim in this case.
In a nutshell, the CEUI claims that the respondents
have publicly campaigned, during the course of ongoing
negotiations, to decertify the CEUI and have thereby
interfered with the barnainins urocess. the statutorv
duty of the CEUI to barGain -e~%?I.usivel$,
- - and the sta'tu-
tory right of the membera of th- W-2 unit to have the
CEUI bargain interference-free. The CEUI, by virtue of
its election (Offer, i/G) and certification (Offer, $9)
has the ri ht, C.G.S. Sec. 5-271(c), and the duty, C.G.S.
sec. 271(e F to bargain as t:e exclusive representative.
The resuond&ts, by their utlnri.iT~i~e~ssault on the
CEUI, have effectively interx*red with the Section
5-271(a) rights of W-2 members. C.C.S. Sec. 5-272(b)(l).
 CEUI makes much of the fact that PEF's organizational campaign
did not occur at a tine when it was clearly timely to file a decer-
tification and representation petition. This, according to CEIJI,
demonstrates an intent by PEE' to cast C%UI in a negative light in
the eyes of the employees whom CEUI represents and to disrupt CEXJI
bargaining.
As an initial point of departure, we do not believe organiza-
tional campaigning should be restricted only to the time frames
immediately preceding and during those periods when it is clearly
timely to file a petition. Although it is true that we rarely \\
entertain petitions at times other than those specified in our
regulations, exceptions are permitted, and it would not be proper
to choke off organizational campaigns simply because a resulting
petition may ultimately be found untimely. Indeed it is common
place for out-unions to maintain a continual organizational campaign
of limited intensity throughout tne term of another union's incum-
bency as exclusive bargaining agent, No doubt, as CEUI.argues,
organizational campaigns may affect the attitude of bargaining unit
employees toward the incumbent unions and necessitate the expense
of mounting a defense campaign. CZJI makes an accurate point in
arguing that intense campai&3-s, such as PEF's, may have some effect
on stability in labor relations; but despite these harms to the
incumbent union and potential threat to stability of the employer-
union relationship, other labor relations principles are served by
continuing open discussion and debate concerning the essentially
political question of what labor organization, if any, should repre-
sent the bargaining unit. CiGJI's Offer of Proof and exhibits do
not demonstrate an attcmot by P%? to bargain with the State con-
cerning the NP-2 bargaining uni-i;. Such attempts would constitute
illegal interference with CZUi's status as exclusive bargaini:lg
agent for the Pip-2 unit. Vhat is demonstrated is political speech
which we believe is protected by the first amendment of the federal
constitution. By its organizatiocal campaign, PEF sought to per-
suade employees in t!lc i;P-2 bargaini?.g unit to exercise their
franchise as employee-electors in favor oi" PEF and against CEUI.
To this end, PEF accumulateci intent cards whic!x it intended to file
with the Dvard to effect a representation election. These cards
were never filed, zntl althou6h we do not on the present record
know for certain wh:: -they were not, the most li!!ely explanation
is that PEF's camDalgn was not successr^ul in obtaining the requisite
percentage of cards. In any event, PEF's statements, broth oral and
written during the course of the campaign, were clearly within ti:e
realm of political sneocn and suck speech is "at the heart of first
amendment protection." i3uckley v. Valco, 424 U.S. 1, 4 (1976).
Rights of free speech en,joy a soecial protection under law
and this has been reneatedly affirm& by the United States Supreme
<I .'.310
Court. I.!arch \rV ,'7,::,r.-?a,
id 326 U.S. 5Ol;~Thornhi_!.l v. Al;;bona,
U.S. 88;-Tie~ York j:.:.:?s Co. v. SuK+i~~,~~' U.S. 254. ikrrow
exception~--'---~-~
ncve oeaii loc::d CO the 11rs'c amendment's protections
of freedom of speech, but these are iiniited, e.g., no protection
for speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in vio-
lation of criminal statute, Ci.b:~mc:r v. Einnire Stornqe & Ice Co.,
336 U.S. 430; publication in-"m?Axo.t' n:~~i.oi~nl war effort,
Near v. iJlnncsoi;a 253 U.S. 657; defamatory statements made with
knowledge of'>!ity or with reckless disregard for the truth,
New York yALP9
Tjnes v C:~illi.van _-L) suer:'* s;lecifically not excluded from
3irst amcncll,ient protection arc eqloyee statements made az a public
meeting to a public e.nployer coi~cerning sub,jects of bargaining then
under consider*ation between the c111plsyer arid the employee's exclu-
sive bargaining re;>resenxtive, Cit_llof !sIadisnn v. Wisconsin
B~plovmant Relc\t.ion:r Col;,.nisr,ioil
w-9 T23 U.S.167.
Consistent with these first amendment decisions, the U. S.
Supreme Court has found that Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (29 U.S.C. Snc. 157), which guarantees to employees the
right "to form, join, or assist" labor organizations, affords
protection for uniun ireu Sj'jr:CI;1!. lLiA3 3. Lil'~iv~:l~ti Local ij9,
362 U.S. 274. In more recent cases, the Court has expanded upon

-7-
and emphasized the broad scope of this protection.
Basic to the right guaranteed to employees in Section 7
to form, join or ass ist labor organizations, is the
right to engage in concerted activities to persuade
other employees to join for their mutual aid and pro-
tection. Indeed, even before the Norris-LaGuardia Act
and the Wagner Act, this Court recognized the right in
unions to 'use all lawful propaganda to enlarge their
membership', Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 US 264,
278.
X x x

Vigorous exercise of this right to persuade other

employees to join must not be stifled by the threat
of liability for the overenthusiastic use of rhetoric
or the innocent mistake of fact. Thus the (National
Labor Relations) Board has concluded that statements
of fact or opinion relevant to a union organizing
campaign are protected by Section 7 even if they are
defamatory and prove to be erroneous, unless made with
knowledge of their falsity." ID- 418 US at 278.
The nature of union speech which the Court considers within
the ambit of Section 7 protection was graphically described in
Linn v. Plant Guard %'orkcrs, 383 US 53.
(1)abor disputes are ordinarily heated affairs; the
language that is commonplace there might well be deemed
actionable per se in some state jurisdictions. Indeed,
representation campaigns are frequently characterized
by bitter and extreme charges, unfounded rumors,
vituperations, personal accusations, misrepresentations,
and distorticns. Both labor and management often speak
bluntly and recklessly, embellishing their respective
positions with imprecatory language.
Section 7 of the NLRA is similar to Section 5-271(a) of our
State Employee Act and our State Supreme Court has stated that
where our Connecticut Labor Relations statutes contain similar
language, the ,judicial interpreta-Lion accorded the Federal statute
will be of great assistance in inreroretin;: the Connecticut
statutes. ?lest I-!.--rtr'ord ~ti. AssIn 7:: DoCo~!rcv, I62 Conn. 566,
579 ; ,;~i,l~so~-------'-'-
.,?.tXtsor I_...,_. iJ?fit , " ~'~L~i~ee.5 Ass'n, Inc., 154
POllCC
Conn. 550, 536.
It is our conclusion, based upon the authority discussed
above, thst the speech con&;:t of .-:T rdi (and CSZA) covered by this
complaint falls uitl;in the protecticn of the first amendment
unless the stntements made were fal-ae and were made with knowledge
of falsity or'reckless disregard for their truth. Pew York Ti mes
v. Sullivan, sunra. . L'e do not know whether the sta<ements rr,z;y-
by l+;;? !*:ere true
- or false. Our tnsk in deciding the motion to
dismiss is to decide whether the facts alleged in CiXI's Offer of
Proof, assuming they can be supported by evidence and proven,
state a violation of the Act. Item i-;26 in the Offer alleges that
many of the statements made by J.33 in its organizational campaign
were false. However, there is no allegation in the Offer that
the statements were made with kno:vledge of falsity or with reck-
less disregard of their truth or falsity. Since CEUI chose not
to make such allegations, it evidently does not have evidence to
support any such allegation. .'nd as meny public officials and
public figures have discovered since the Slqreme Court decided
Mew Yor!; Times .--v. Sullivan
' , the burden of proving such allegations
would have been neavjr.
 Dismissal of Complaints
.--
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the Connecti-
cut State Board of Labor Relations by the Act Concerning Collective
Bargaining for State Employees, it is
ORDERED, that the complaints filed herein be, and the same
hereby are, dismissed.
CONNrECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

BY s/ Fleming: James, Jr.

Fleming James, Jr., Chairman

s/ !lenneth A, Stroble
Kenneth t;. Stroble

\\
s/ Patricia V.
Low
Patricia V. Low

TO:
Jerome Brown, Vice President
District 1133 CERTIFIED (RRR)
-‘---A-- _ 150 Temple Street
... Ner! Haven, Connecticut 06510
John M. Creane, Esq.
Coughlin, Creane, Malone & Milne
92 Cherry Street
Milford, Connecticut 06460
Salvatorc J. Perruccio, President
Conn. Employees Union t'Independent'l, Inc.
72 Court Street CERTIFIED (WQ)
Middletown, Connecticut 06457
Edward T. Lynch, Jr., Eso.
33 Lexington Street
P. 0. Box 1598
New Britain, Connecticut 06050
v!illiam Hickey, Executive Director
Connecticut *State Enployees Associatin CERTIFIED (RRR)
760 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Conr,ecticut 06106
Robert J. Krzys, Esq.
C.S.E.A.
760 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106

-9-