Ct Prosecutors Collective Bargaining Agreement

2. IMPACT BARGAINING State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision 3014-B, (8/27/93): The Union asserted that the State had unilaterally changed a condition of employment by closing the custody towers of a prison and refused to negotiate before the closure or to negotiate the effects of the closure. The Working Committee found that the closure of the guard towers was within management`s discretion and was not a mandatory bargaining topic. The Working Committee also found that the closure did not have a significant impact on the health and safety of workers and therefore did not require negotiations on side effects. The complaint was dismissed. State of Connecticut, Decision 2859 (10/30/90): The Union asserted that the state had unilaterally changed the conditions of employment by unilaterally changing the labour rules relating to the allocation of overtime projects. The Labour Council found that the issue of restrictions on employment outside of employment concerned a clause or condition of employment and a subject for compulsory bargaining, and that the unilateral implementation of non-work rules was a departure from previous practice and a violation of the obligation of States to negotiate. State of Connecticut (DPS), Decision 2466 (3/21/86): The Union asserted that the State had unilaterally changed the terms of employment by converting its system for reporting a perforated card to the computer. Alternatively, the UNION asserted that the State was obliged to negotiate the side effects of such an amendment. The Working Committee found that the change to the notification system was not a mandatory bargaining issue, as it was within the jurisdiction of management. The Labour Council also found that the side effects of this change did not result in any significant change in the workload or safety of the bargaining unit members and dismissed the complaint. State of Connecticut (DIM), Decision 2371 (3/12/85): The Union claimed that the state had broken the law by refusing to negotiate the side effects of a new transportation system by negotiating the form of the review. The laboratory filed the complaint on the grounds of a 5-272 (d) ban on the law.

State of Connecticut (Executive Branch), Decision 2052 (6/17/81): The Union asserted that the State unilaterally implemented the new classifications outlined in Policy 8683c. The Labour Council found that the very specific language contained in the rights management clause allowed the State to make such changes without negotiation. The employment agency also found that the state was required to negotiate the effects of implementation, as these changes had a significant impact on wages, hours and other conditions of employment. The Labour Council concluded that the state had fulfilled its obligation in this matter and dismissed the complaint. Table of Materials 6. UNILATERAL CHANGE State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision 4083 (9/12/05): The Union argued that the DOC had unilaterally changed an earlier practice by refusing to make available essential personnel working during emergency closures due to weather conditions. The Labour Council found that the UNION had not established an existing practice and dismissed the complaint. State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision 4084 (9/13/05): The Union asserted that the DOC had unilaterally changed a practice of giving workers the opportunity to obtain overtime for the required training. The Labour Council found that the union had not established a previous practice in an employment condition, which was a mandatory bargaining topic, and dismissed the complaint.

State of Connecticut (DOC), Decision 3890 (16.12.02) 😀 ie Union asserted that the DOC had unilaterally changed a long-standing practice of not using detainee testimony in complaint proceedings. The Labour Council found that the decision to use the inmates` testimony was not a mandatory bargaining topic and dismissed the complaint.