STATE OF CONNECTICUT

LABOR DEPARTMENT

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

IN THE MATTER OF
LOCAL 1522 AND 1303-321, COUNCIL 4,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
DECISION NO. 3898
-and-
FEBRUARY 13, 2003
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT

-and-

NATHAN JACKSON

Case No. MUPP-22,724

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

Attorney John P. Bohannon, Jr.

For the City

Attorney J. William Gagne, Jr.

For the Union

Nathan Jackson
Pro Se

DECISION AND DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

On September 17, 2001, Nathan Jackson (the Complainant) filed a complaint,

amended on November 30, 2001, with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations
(the Labor Board) alleging that Local 1522 and 1303-321, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-
CIO (the Union) and the City of Bridgeport (the City) violated the Municipal Employee
Relations Act. Specifically, the Complainant alleges that the Union has failed to fairly
represent him and the City has failed to reinstate him to a position with the City and to
make him whole for losses.

After the requisite preliminary steps had been taken, the matter came before the
Labor Board for a hearing on October 1, 2002. At that hearing, the Complainant
requested a postponement in order to secure counsel to represent him in this matter. The
Labor Board postponed the hearing until January 29, 2003 with instructions that the
Complainant was to inform the Labor Board regarding his lawyer at least one week
before that hearing. The parties were informed by the Labor Board that no further
postponements would be granted on the grounds that the Complainant had not retained
counsel.

The Complainant did not inform the Labor Board of the status of his
representation but did appear pro se at the hearing on January 29, 2003. The Union and
the City also appeared and were represented by counsel. All parties were given full
opportunity to present evidence and make argument. At the close of the Complainant’s
presentation, the Union and the City moved to dismiss this case on the basis that the
Complainant had failed to produce any evidence to support his complaint. On the basis
of the entire record before us, we make the following findings of fact and conclusion of
law and we dismiss the complaint.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The City is an employer within the meaning of the Act.

2. The Union is an employee organization within the meaning of the Act and at all
material times was the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the
City.

3. In 1997, the Complainant and the Union filed a prohibited practice complaint with
the Labor Board (Case No. MPP-19,326) alleging that the City had failed to comply with
a previous settlement agreement regarding the Complainant. The Labor Board dismissed
that complaint (City of Bridgeport, Decision No. 3696-1, 5/27/99). (Ex. 12).

4. The Union appealed Decision No. 3696-1 to Superior Court. The Court dismissed
the appeal on May 3, 2001.

5. On September 27, 1999, the Union filed another prohibited practice complaint
(Case No. MPP-21,174) alleging that the City continued to fail to pay backpay owed to
the Complainant under the previous settlement agreement.

6. The complaint in Case No. MPP-21,174 was withdrawn by the Union in June,
2000 and the case was closed by the Labor Board.

7. On September 17, 2001, the Complainant filed the instant case, alleging that the
Union had failed to represent him and the City had failed to reinstate him and make him
whole.

8. After appropriate notice, the Labor Board held a hearing on the instant case
October 1, 2002 at which all parties appeared. The hearing was adjourned at the request
of the Complainant in order to allow him to secure representation by counsel.

2
9. Another hearing was held on January 29, 2003, at which all parties appeared. The
Complainant appeared pro se.

10. The Complainant was allowed to present his case during the hearing held on
January 29, 2003. The Complainant did not present any witnesses or documentary
evidence but did state that he did not feel that the Union had properly represented him in
previous complaints and that the City should reinstate him and give him backpay and
benefits.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The Complainant did not prove that the Union or the City violated the Act in any
manner.

DISCUSSION

The Complainant has failed to produce any evidence that either the Union or the
City violated the Act by their actions. The record shows that the Union has represented
the Complainant in previous proceedings up to and including representation in Superior
Court. There is no evidence that the City has not fulfilled its obligations under previous
agreements and/or awards. The complaint is dismissed.

ORDER

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

ORDERED that the complaint 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

____________________
David C. Anderson
Alternate Board Member

3
 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed postage prepaid this 13th
day of February, 2003 to the following:

Nathan Jackson
61 Waverly Place RRR
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06610

Attorney J. William Gagne, Jr.

Gagne & Associates RRR
1260 Silas Deane Highwayohannon, Jr.
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109

Attorney John P. Bohannon, Jr.

1261 Post Road RRR
Fairfield, Connecticut 06430

Edmund E. Winterbottom
Director of Labor Relations
City Hall, 45 Lyon Terrace
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

Kevin M. Murphy, Area Coordinator

Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
444 East Main Street
New Britain, Connecticut 06051

Attorney Susan Creamer

Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
444 East Main Street
New Britain, Connecticut 06051

____________________________
Jaye Bailey Zanta, General Counsel
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS