The State Board of Mediation and Arbitration recently found that the City of Hartford did not violate its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Hartford Police Union when it decided to revoke its four-day work-week assignment. The complaint was originally filed in Aug. 2022, and in a similar fashion to a complaint filed by the union last month, it alleged that the department’s decision has negatively impacted its officers.
The complaint stemmed from an Aug. 2022 decision made by Hartford Police Chief Jason Thody to suspend the department’s four-day work-week schedule out of concern for staffing. Thody testified in the arbitration case that inion officials were made aware of this decision prior to it being made, and “did not specifically agree with the decision but understood it.”
The union filed a Second Step grievance complaint on Aug. 22, 2022, stating that the suspension of the schedule violated the CBA. The complaint also alleged that the decision caused officers to miss out on salary increases and reduced the availability of responding officers for backup and service calls. Thody denied the grievance on Sept. 15, 2022, and the union responded with a Third Step grievance on Sept. 22, which brought it before the State Board.
Hearings were held on the complaint from June 2023 to Feb. 2024, with the case finally being decided on June 18, 2024. According to the decision, the City first included provision for a four-day, ten-hour (4/10) work week in the police union’s CBA in 1990. The two parties then entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlining the terms and conditions of the four-day schedule in July 1991. The basis of the argument between the two parties boiled down to which document, the CBA or the MOU, holds more weight.
“The Union argues that the Employer made a unilateral change in existing conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of bargaining; that Employer refused to bargain in good faith,” read the union’s position, as outlined in the decision. “The MOU specifically states that the 4/10 schedule shall not be altered, amended or modified without the agreement of the parties.”
The union also argued that “failure to fill the 4/10 schedule has affected wages and pension benefits for affected employees.” It argued that language in the CBA mandated the Chief fill at least one officer to the 4/10 schedule and that his suspension of the schedule violates the CBA.
The City argued that the CBA, which contained language that would allow for Thody to have more discretion in altering the work week agreement, “is the pivotal document to look at.” It argued that as of 2004, the CBA was modified in a way that makes the MOU moot, by giving chiefs the discretion to mandate officers to 4/10 shifts if they so choose, yet not requiring them to do so.
“The credible evidence supports a finding that the terms of the 1991 MOU were provided for, with some bargained-for amendments, in the 2004 CBA and that the MOU is not protected by Article 3.4 after 2004,” read the discussion portion of the board’s decision. ”The plain language of the CBA does not require the Chief to assign any specific number or assign all those who bid for it.”
The City also argued that if the police union truly believed the CBA mandated that officers be assigned to the 4/10 shift, that it would have filed grievances in the past, as open 4/10 slots have been frequently left vacant.
Ultimately, the Board decided that the City did not violate its CBA, and has dismissed the grievance.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
