STATE OF CONNECTICUT

LABOR DEPARTMENT

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

IN THE MATTER OF

TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD

DECISION NO. 3853

-and-

JANUARY 7, 2002
EAST HARTFORD POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Case No. MPP-22,743

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Attorney Jose R. Ramirez

For the Town

Attorney Stephen F. McEleney

For the Union

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR INTERIM RELIEF

On September 17, 2001, the East Hartford Police Officers Association (the
Union) filed a complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (the Labor
Board) alleging that the Town of East Hartford (the Town) had violated the Municipal
Employees Relations Act (MERA or the Act) by unilaterally implementing the use of
bargaining unit members in a “Regional Traffic Unit” and by using non-bargaining unit
members in that Regional Traffic Unit to perform bargaining unit work.

With its complaint, the Union filed a Request for Interim Relief claiming that it
will suffer irreparable harm if the Town is not enjoined from participating in a Regional
Traffic Unit. On September 24, 2001, the Town filed a response to the Union’s Petition
requesting that the Petition be dismissed because the Union has not met the standards for
issuance of an interim relief order as set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies § 7-471-36.

DISCUSSION

We have considered the Petition for Interim Relief, including the supporting
documents and affidavit of the Union President as well as the City’s response and
supporting affidavit of Police Chief Mark Sirois. In this case, we find that interim relief
is not warranted and we dismiss the Petition without a hearing.

Section 7-471-36(g) of the Labor Board’s regulations states:

In determining whether to issue an interim order the board shall consider

(1) the harm to the complainant if an interim order is not issued; including
whether irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result:
(2) the harm to the respondent if an interim order is issued;
(3) the probability of success on the merits by the complainant; and
(4) the interests of the public.

The Union argues that the Town’s unilateral action in participating in a Regional Traffic
Unit will result in irreparable harm because: (1) East Hartford police officers may be
subject to unreasonable danger and/or discipline because they will be forced to work
under the rules, regulations and procedures of different towns; (2) East Hartford police
officers may be subject to civil liability to which they would not be subject while
working within East Hartford; (3) the use of non-bargaining unit police officers to
perform traffic work within the Town will deprive bargaining unit members of work
opportunities which will be practically impossible to quantify; (4) the use of non-
bargaining unit police officers generates the fear of the loss of a bargaining unit position;
and (5) the unilateral decision to participate in the Regional Traffic Unit without
bargaining about the impact of that decision undermines the integrity of the bargaining
process and the authority of the Union.

The Town argues that the Union has not met its burden of establishing that
interim relief is necessary. In its response and supporting affidavit, the Town states that
bargaining unit police officers have previously worked on numerous occasions in other
communities on police projects such as suppression of narcotics traffic and investigations
of gang activities. The Town also states that non-bargaining unit police personnel have,
on many occasions and without objection, performed police work in the Town on special
occasions pursuant to mutual aid agreements with other police agencies. The Town also
argues that the officers’ safety will not be compromised by this activity because “use of
force” and “motor vehicle pursuits” are regulated by State statutes and are substantially
the same in all cities and towns. Further, officers will be able to communicate with their
own police department at all times and will not work alone in a different community.
Finally, the Town argues that the mutual aid agreement at issue provides that officers will
be subjected to the rules on discipline followed by their own departments and any
allegations of misconduct will be handled by their own departments. All other fears
expressed by the Union are characterized as mere speculation by the Town.

We have previously stated that a general assertion by a Union that its credibility
will suffer in the eyes of the membership is insufficient to support the use of
extraordinary relief. City of Meriden, Decision no. 3819 (2001); City of Bridgeport,
Decision No. 3797 (2000). With regard to fear that a bargaining unit position will be
lost, the Union did not offer any evidence in its affidavit or other documents to support its

assertion of that speculative fear. Indeed, no information was offered as to the impact on
scheduling or work opportunities of this Regional Traffic Unit.

Concerning the potential danger to and/or discipline of bargaining unit members

while performing duties outside the Town limits, the evidence submitted by the Town
satisfies us that the police officers are not in any immediate physical danger nor that they
would be subject to foreign disciplinary standards. The Town’s evidence indicates that at
least for certain special operations in the past, bargaining unit members have worked in
other communities without consequence. Finally, we do not see the risk of irreparable
harm if it is eventually found that certain work opportunities have been lost due to the
presence of non-bargaining unit members performing certain bargaining unit work. This
seems to be the type of information which is quantifiable and for which traditional
remedies would suffice. As a result of our above conclusions, we do not see any manner
in which the public will be harmed by the actions of the City.

We are also not convinced at this time that there is a probability of success on the
merits of this complaint. The Town has argued that mutual aid agreements have existed
for many years and has supported that statement with the affidavit of the Police Chief.
We simply cannot say based on the evidence submitted by the Union at this time that
there is a probability that it will succeed on the merits of this complaint.

ORDER

By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the Connecticut State Board of
Labor Relations by the Municipal Employees Relations Act, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Petition filed herein be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED.

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

______________________

John W. Moore, Jr.

Chairman

______________________

Patricia V. Low

Board Member

_______________________

Wendella A. Battey

Board Member

 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed postage, prepaid this 7th
day of January, 2002 to the following:

Attorney Stephen F. McEleney

McEleney & McGrail

RRR
The McKone Building

363 Main Street

Hartford, Connecticut 06106

Jose R. Ramirez, Assistant Corporation Counsel

Town of East Hartford

RRR
Town Hall, 740 Main Street

East Hartford, Connecticut 06108

James W. Shay, Chief of Police

497 Tolland Street

East Hartford, Connecticut 06108

Thomas Dawkins, Personnel Director

Town of East Hartford

Town Hall, 740 Main Street

East Hartford, Connecticut 06108

______________________________

Jaye Bailey Zanta, General Counsel

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS