Lawmakers on March 27 voted to approve a collective bargaining agreement for Connecticut’s assistant attorneys general which included an 11 percent pay increase and bonuses, and the Appropriations Committee on April 1 approved a similar […]
assistant attorneys general
Connecticut’s Appropriations Committee on Monday approved an arbitration award for Connecticut’s unionized assistant attorneys general which will cost the state $3.3 million in salary raises, benefits and bonuses. The contract award was won through arbitration […]
Connecticut assistant attorneys general voted to join the American Federation of Teachers via mail-in ballot on Tuesday. The ballots, which were mailed out October 4, tallied 101-64, according to the Connecticut State Labor Relations Board.
Assistant attorneys general who plan to vote "no" in an upcoming union vote are making their case to their colleagues, arguing that a union could interfere with the existing relationship they have with their boss, Attorney General George Jepsen.
A letter circulating among the AAGs and published on the website, AAG Independence, criticized Governor Malloy for rescinding raises for managerial employees in February of 2016. But the unnamed authors argue that if the department had been obligated by union contract to give those raises, attorney would have lost their jobs.
The State Labor Relations Board scheduled a mail-in vote for October to determine whether assistant attorney's general will form a union.
The SLRB also determined that class 4 assistant attorneys general are excluded from unionization because they act as department heads and are therefore classified as management.
Five assistant attorneys general filed a petition with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations today in an effort to force a vote on unionization by secret ballot before the board recognizes a new union in the Attorney General’s Office.
The AAGs claim that failure to hold a secret ballot would violate their “fundamental and statutory right to oppose unionization.” The petitioners claim that no other group, including their employer, would defend them on their stated issues they face “a substantial and immediate threat” to their rights to oppose unionization.
