Connecticut Attorney General's Office
Press Release
Attorney General Calls On Federal Court To Block Pratt & Whitney Layoffs
January 27, 2010
Blumenthal argued in support of a lawsuit filed by the District Lodge 26 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO seeking to block the job transfers. In addition to his argument in court today, Blumenthal's office has filed two friend of the court briefs in the case.
Blumenthal said the evidence demonstrates Pratt had no intention of trying to preserve the jobs. The company camouflaged its intent by making unreasonable demands that it knew the union and the state could never fulfill.
Blumenthal asked the court to rule that Pratt's transfer of jobs out of state breaches its collective bargaining agreement -- and to permanently bar Pratt from moving the positions for the term of the current collective bargaining agreement.
"Powerful evidence and Pratt's own admission show that it broke the law by demanding concessions that were unnecessary, unreasonable and unachievable," Blumenthal said. "The facts can result in only one conclusion: the company cannot move Connecticut jobs to Singapore or Japan and other states. Disregarding $100 million in incentives and significant worker concessions, the company failed to negotiate in good faith.
"I am calling on the court to prevent Pratt from eliminating jobs, hammering Connecticut's economy and hundreds of families. These job transfers violate Pratt's binding contractual promises to its workers. Pratt failed to demonstrate that transfer of this work -- which has consistently and increasingly generated profits -- would result in savings during the term of the present contract.
"Proof at trial demonstrates that Pratt disingenuously demanded concessions it knew to be impossible, callously and cavalierly violating its legal agreement with workers to make every reasonable effort to preserve work. Pratt's negotiations with the union and the state were a sham and charade to conceal its foregone conclusion to move jobs out of state. The company's own executives essentially admitted so, testifying that Pratt had no intention of accepting the concessions it dubiously demanded."