!%A!l!

EoFazNNEcrICur
L?BDRDEE%Rl.WNT

..

Inthemtterof :
:
: ~o!?aNNEmICur : .
DEX'~OFPUBLICWIL~~L :
: Decision No. 2295
Land- :
:
CCmEcrICUrsTATEm~AsSCCmIoN : March 26, 1984
:
Case No. SPP-6683 :
A PPEARANCES:
------_---_
Saranne P. Murray, Attomy
for the State
Pnbert J. Krzys, Esq.
forC%A

DECISION
and
DISMISSALOF'CCMP~
Cn August 6, 1981, the Connecticut State Employees Association (CSEA) file
a amplaintwith the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (L&or Boara)
alleging that the State of Connecticut, Departient of Public Utilities Control
(State) had engaged a& was engaging in prohibited practices within the meaning
of the Act Concerning Collective Eargaining for State Ehployees (the Act) in that:
1. The Respondent, State of Connecticut, Departrent of Public Utilities
Control, is an employer, as provided by C.G.S. Sec. 5-270(a).
2. The Caqlainant, Connecticut State mluyees Association, is the
exclusive bargaining agent for the P-4 bargaining unit, elected and
certified pursuant to C.G.S., Sec. 5-275, et seq.
3. Tlie Rfspmdentand Canplainantwere parties to a collective bargain-
ing agreement effective July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1981.
4. The title of Public Utilities Senior Ehgineer is included in SE-5984
andwas the title of the employees involved in this canplaint.
5. On May 14, 1981 the Cavplainant ret with De-t of public Util-
ities cantrol personnel to discuss the proposed organization of a
Rate Division within the departmmt.
6. The Respondentindicatedthatanewjds specification of Public
Utilities Senior Rate Specialisthadbeen created andmuldbe in
the Mministrative ax-d Residual (P-5) bargaining unit.
7. Ttre Cotplainant charged that the new job specification was a copy
of the P-4 jab specification for Public Utilities Rate and Research
Engineer, a title covered by the certification SE-5984.
8. The Resporhmt, by mm of June 11, 1981, reclassified 4 Public
Utilities Senior Engineers to PublicUtilities Senior Rate Specialists.
9. WHERGFQRG the Ccnplainant claims a violation of C.G.S., Sec.
5-272(a) (1) (2).
 10. WHEREFORE the Canplainant claims the follming relief:
Q) An order directing the Respondent to cease and desist fran
its actions to reduce the make-up of the P-4 bargaining
unit and to assignduties of the title fmncertification
SE-5984 to another bargaining unit.
fb) Anyotherreliefdemad appropriate.
Afterthsrequisiteprelimimryadministrative stepshadbeentaken, the
Labor Board's Agent memmendeddismissalof the caxplaintbaseduponinvestigation
OftheoQnplaintand~r~~~s~~~by~thA. Haq+zon,AssistantLabor
Relations Agent of the Labor Board. objections to the reccmmdation of dismissal
- we?zetimly filedby CSEAand ahearingwas subsequentlyheldbefore the Labor
%oard on Septenber 7, 1982. Thepartiesa~edatthehearing andwereprovided
aful1opportunitytoadduceevidence, exmdne and cross-examinewitnesses and
'nuke argument. CSEA filed a post-hearing brief on January 5, 1983.
Raving reviewed ti whole record before us and having deliberated the questions
raised,wehave concluded the recordsupports the findings of fact contained in the
F&orton Investigatim and Reommnda tion of Dismissal issued by Assistant Agent
b%tpton and incorporated into the Roard Agent's F&ccmmdation of Dismissal (EX. 2).
We alsoagreewiththe reasoning setforththerein foidismissalof thecmplaint.
Therefore, we hereby incorporate the findings of fact and discussion therein set
forth into this decision as follows:
Findings of Fact
1. The CSEA is an employee organization within the meaning of the State
RrployeeRelations Act (the Act) and the certifiedbargaining agent of the Engineer-
ing, Scientific and Related (P-4) bargaining unit of State employees.
2. The Mministrative and Residual Employees Union, Local 4200 CSFT is an
enplayee organizationwithin the meaning of the Act and the certifiedbargainizg
agent of the Adninistrative and Residual (P-5) bargaining unit of State employees.
3. The State of Connecticut, Department of Public Utilities Control, is ah
employerwithinthesmn.ing of the Act.
4. There is a contract ineffectbetweeh the State of Connecticut and CSEA
which states in&ticleVSec. lthat, WE State reserves and retains whether
exercised or not all the rights, powers and prerogatives of public mnagenwt.
Such rights include but are not limited to... detetmining the mission of sn agency
and them~snd mthcds necessary to fulfill that mission, incltiing the discon-
tinuation of positions . ..the determination of the content of job classifications."
5. Thereisacontractineffectbe~~StateandtheAanJRRon
whose Article III Section One is identical to language cited in finding of fact 4.
6. There exist in the P-4 bargaining unit the job classifications of (a)
Public Utilities Engineer arid (b) Public Utilities Rate and Research Engineer.
7. The Public Utilities Rate and Research Fngineer class has been vacant for
approximately three and one-half years.
8. On or about Cctober 9, 1980, reclassification panel Chairman, Dennis Dion,
rendered a decision for the CSFA in the Richard Albani grievance which decision
stated that, The panel finds that ths Public Utilities Rhgineer series of job specs
does mot clearly indicate that all rate analysis related work should be performed
by the grievants...the panel reaxmn ds that the rate related duties as defined in
the Public Utilities Rate Specialist job spec, be removed fran the grievsnts duties
as Public Utilities Eslgineers."
9. There exist in the P-5 bargaining unit the job classifications of (c)
Public Utilities Rate Specialist and (d) Public Utilities Senior Rate Specialist
the latter of which was created on or about May 14, 1981.
10. Cn or &out June 11, 1981, four public utilities engineers (P-4) were given
the option of being laid off for lack of work or being reclassified into the position
of Public Utilities Senior Rate Specialist (P-5).

-2-
 :

. :

. . .

.
ll. The f&.renployees elected toandwere reclassified into the senior Rate
Specialist (P-5) position.
Discussion
CSRAherealleges that the Statewasmtivatedbyanimsandan intenttodis-
criminate wheh it created the P-5 senior rate specialist classification rather than
reaevating ah.ithertodomantP-4 positionof rate and researchengineer. The
State takes theposition that the rate specialistclasswas createdwithout anims
as alegitimteexerciseofmanagerialdiscretionand indeedas anecessarycoroll&
of a prior reclass panel decision. Needless to say, the A and R local axxurs in
the State's analysis and further claims that rate making duties are rrost appropriate
in the P-5 unit. Upon consideration of the testimny received at conference, it is
clear that Pespondent's position is correct and that there is no reasonable cause to
find a violation of the Act.
Inordertoproveacaseofanti-unionanimus, theccsplainantpartymustprove
that the action takenwasnotivatedby a desire to damage the union arxlitsne&ers
rather than for objective reason. T&m of Windham, De& 831; l'@.m of Windsor Police,
Dec. 1012; City of Waterbury, Dec. 1074; State of Connecticut, Dec. 1820. Thus,
to the extent a respondent,is able to show that its action was permitted by contract,
not inherently dest&ctive of the bargaining agent's position, &d n-otivated by
objective criteria, sn anti-union animus amplaint must fail. The determination
of the underlying motivation must in the mjority of cases be gleaned frcm the
totality of the situation.
.Here the issue of rate making duties was raised in a grievance by Ccsplainant
CSEA, noi the State. Likewise, the arbitration panel was upholding CSE?)'s grievance
when it ordered that "rate related duties as defined in the Public Utilities Pate
Specialist (P-5) job spec be reamed from the grievants duties as Public Utility
mginee.rs (P-4)." Thus, any inference of arhus mustbe drawn frcxntheway in
which the State canpliedwith the panel's award.
There is insufficient, indeed, noevidencetending to shmthatthe creation
of the new P-5 position rather than the filling of the doment P-4 Rate and Research
Engineer position was mtivated by animus. First of all, the State in the mnage-
sent rights clause of both contracts, clearly and explicitly reserves the right to
create positions and detexmine their content, and thus, it is not autanatically bound
to fill vacant positions. Second, and nore inportant, is the fact that there are
substantive differences in the twopositions. The new P-5 position appears mre
administrative innature as evidencedby the fact that its occupants are required
to 'CTOSS examine witnesses. The P-4 position lacks this very significant duty, and
furtherrequires substantialpracticalengineeringexperience. Thus, eventhough
the positions, or mre accurately, the job descriptions are t?awwhat similar, that
similarityisnotenoughtosupportan inferemethattbs State tookaP-4 job,
changed its title, and put it into P-5 just to spite CSEA for its victory in the re-
class grievance.
Conclusions of Law
1. The State's action in creating the new job specification of Public Utilities
Senior Rate Specialist and the inclusion of that position in the A and R unit did
not constitute a violation of the Act.
2. The reclassification by transfer of the four (4) persons who formerly held
the position of Public Utilities Senior Engineer to the position of Public Utilities
Senior Pate Specialist did not constitute a violation of the Act.

Dismissal of Ccmplaint
Byvirtueof andpursuanttothapcwersvested in the Connecticut State Eoard
of IabxRelations by the ActCnn cerning Collective Bargaining for State R-@oyees,
it is
ORDERED,thatthec5iplaintfiledhereinbe,and the saseherebyis,dismissed.

w s/ Patricia V. Law
Patricia V. Low
s/ Kenneth A. Stroble
Kenneth A. Stroble ._.