Wallingford Signs Off on Union Contracts with Questionable Legal Language

As the Town of Wallingford faces a challenge by AFSCME for allowing employees to resign from union membership without AFSCME’s permission, the town council signed off on new labor contract extensions that contain language contrary to the Supreme Court’s Janus decision.

At the December 11 and November 27 meetings the town council accepted collective bargaining agreements for AFSCME Local 1183 and UPSEU Local 424 that contain language saying all employees must become union members or pay an agency fee to the union.

Agency fees were deemed a violation of public-sector workers’ First Amendment rights under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.

Town councilman and state representative Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, questioned the legality of keeping the language in the contract during the Nov. 27 meeting.

Human Resources Director for the Town of Wallingford James Hutt said the town wanted to strike the agency fee language.

Rather than argue with the unions over the language, however, the town decided to fall back on the “savings clause” in the contract which states “if any section of this Agreement shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding will not affect the remainder of this Agreement.”

Fishbein, an attorney, argues the savings clause doesn’t apply to the agency fee language because it refers to future court decisions.

“It’s presumed that the body of the document is legal at the time of authorization,” Fishbein said in an interview.

Hutt said the unions wanted more access to employees if the agency fee language was struck from the contract extensions.

“Since the Janus decision has come out, unions want more face time and want to represent to employees what they can actually do for them,” Hutt told the town council.

Hutt also acknowledged that since the Janus decision the town has ceased collecting dues from employees who informed payroll they no longer wanted to be members of the union.

At least two town employees resigned membership which has led to a confrontation between the Town of Wallingford and AFSCME Council 4. AFSCME says the town cannot cease collecting dues until the union has given its authorization.

Larry Dorman, spokesman for AFSCME Council 4, told the Record Journal that AFSCME provides a 30-day window during which members can leave the union. Similar “opt-out windows” are facing legal challenges in other states and may counter to the Janus decision.

The matter has gone to the state Board of Labor Relations for resolution. The two Wallingford employees who told the town they wanted to resign from the union are reportedly members of Local 1183.

Fishbein says the agency fee language is not the only problem in the contracts, pointing out the contract says an agency fee payer “may apply to the Union for a rebate in accordance with the Union’s existing procedures.”

Fishbein told Hutt that “even before Janus, that language was illegal,” under the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Teachers v. Hudson.

Hudson ruled that applying for a rebate to the union did not offer a “reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker.”

Hutt noted that the town “bargained in good faith” with the unions, who approved the contract, but Fishbein argued it is the town’s responsibility to fight for “actual legal language.”

“I’m just speaking out for the employee who has a question on their mind: can I opt out of the union?” Fishbein said. “The contract says I can’t.”

CT AFL-CIO asks Lamont to extend executive order for schools through June, warns of new shutdown

President of the CT AFL-CIO Sal Luciano sent a letter to Gov. Ned Lamont requesting the governor extend his executive order requiring school districts to continue paying staff and vendors until June of 2021 in case schools are forced to close again. “We ask you to quickly issue a new ...

Read More

After securing raises for state employees, unions run ads to tax the rich

A coalition of public sector unions in Connecticut are running advertisements on television and social media calling for increasing taxes on the wealthy and list off the names of Connecticut’s billionaires they feel should be targeted. The ads come just two months after state employees received a second 3.5 percent ...

Read More

(6) Comments

  1. Peter

    December 14, 2018 9:28 am

    Wallingford’s finances are fine. “Union thugs” haven’t done anything to harm the town’s fiscal health. Connecticut’s state employee unions have already made billions of dollars in concessions. Current pensions are solvent. The problem is debt from old un-funded pensions.

  2. Joseph

    December 13, 2018 9:25 am

    I see no reason for public workers to be in union Connecticut is going broke because of too expensive contracts. The average private pension is about 55000 a year while public pension is about $85000 . By the way I had 38 years in union force to join did not like it .

    • Dave

      November 27, 2019 10:40 am

      False information is detrimental to logical discussion. The pension benefit numbers stated above are grossly inaccurate. There are several factors that determine pension benefits. Please ignore the numbers that have been offered.

      Here are some REAL numbers: Personally, after 29 years as a state employee, my pension was calculated at an annual income of $106,000. My monthly benefit is roughly $36,000 annually ($3000 per month). I certainly hope that my private sector friends are doing much better than that.

      I am thankful that at least I have something, but I also have a bigger concern. When I grew-up, you could afford a house and raise a family on only one paycheck. Almost every employer offered a pension plan. The average business leader (owner, ceo, etcetera) earned about 30 times the pay of the average employee. Today that factor has exploded to 3000 times while pensions have all but become a thing of the past, corporate profits have skyrocketed, and a two income household barley struggles to make ends meet. Why is that?

      There appears to be some sort of assault against the American worker in favor of higher stock dividends and offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands! What is wrong with someone earning a living wage these days? Why are so many people so quick to subjugate the American worker to slave status in favor of increasing the wealth status of the 1%? Why are so many people (about 40% nationally) so easily led by inaccurate information?

      Please people, question data, explore sources, and above all think with your brain instead of your heart. How you “feel” is totally irrelevant. Decisions should be made by discerning actual facts and data.

  3. Joe Benoit

    December 13, 2018 8:38 am

    No john, it is the union THUGS that are the losers, and are causing all of CT to go bankrupt, whether in towns, cities or from the state. They are corrupt, irresponsible, and greedy, and the RANK AND FILE MEMBERS are complicit.
    You are destroying what was a great state.

  4. John

    December 12, 2018 4:37 pm

    The real crook here is Fishbien! He’s on the council but he’s also representing one of the members that opted out. Conflict of interest!!!!loser

  5. iRAN

    December 12, 2018 4:29 pm

    This is just more union thuggery and city officials not standing up for employees and for the law and against union officials. SCOTUS was clear that these mandatory fees are ILLEGAL. What doesn’t the town board understand about that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *