Connecticut Attorney General's Office
Press Release
Attorney General Seeks To File Brief In Support Of Union Challenge To Pratt & Whitney Layoffs
October 8, 2009
District Lodge 26 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' action charges that the job transfers violate its labor agreement with Pratt & Whitney and asks the court to stop the layoffs.
Blumenthal argues in his request to the court that his office should be able to submit a brief because of the layoffs' significant impact on the state economy, collection of revenue for state government and labor relations. Blumenthal also noted that Pratt failed to consider seriously the state's $100 million incentive package to cancel the layoffs.
"Pratt's defenses must fail -- faced with our legal and factual assault," Blumenthal said.
"Pratt's arguments filed yesterday are defective on both legal and factual grounds. In our motion today, we argue that Pratt ignores the key federal legal principle, making the contract enforceable against moving 1,000 jobs. It disregards and denies the key fact that its decision was final -- a fait accompli -- and its supposed bargaining never genuine or in good faith.
"I will fight Pratt &Whitney's attempt to outsource 1,000 well-paying state jobs in violation of its union contract. Loss of these jobs will have a powerful and pernicious impact not only on the workers and their families, but also on the state's economy, tax base and labor relations.
"My office has a compelling and clear interest in assuring Pratt lives up to its labor agreement and should therefore be allowed to intervene. The state can assist in demonstrating that the facts clearly entitle the plaintiff to enforcement of the parties' collectively bargained contractual obligations, including Pratt's obligation to undertake reasonable efforts to preserve work in Connecticut. As the plaintiff correctly alleges, Pratt has violated this obligation by failing to give appropriate weight and consideration to the state's $100 million incentive package, among other failings. Properly evaluated and considered, that incentive package would have permitted Pratt to maintain work in Connecticut without clear or substantial economic loss -- a fact that undermines any assertion that Pratt exercised reasonable efforts to maintain these jobs in Connecticut.
"Pratt is seeking to shirk its deal with the union, shedding jobs and shredding lives even as its top executives receive ever fatter compensation packages. Pratt made a promise and I will fight to compel the company to keep that promise."