Connecticut Attorney General's Office

Press Release

Attorney General Says Pratt & Whitney Proved In Court Its Own Failures To Lawfully Protect CT Jobs

January 15, 2010

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in a brief filed in federal court today, said that Pratt & Whitney has failed to demonstrate that the transfer of about 1,000 Connecticut jobs out of state and overseas will result in any savings during the term of its union contract.

Blumenthal said the company also proved through its own case at trial that it violated its collective bargaining agreement and failed to consider reasonable offers by the union and state to avoid devastating job cuts.

Blumenthal said the evidence demonstrates that Pratt never had any intentions of trying to preserve these jobs. Instead, the company made demands to the union and state -- dubiously disguised as good-faith negotiations -- that were unreasonable, unnecessary and impossible.

Blumenthal is asking the court for a declaratory judgment that Pratt's plan to transfer Connecticut jobs out of state breaches its collective bargaining agreement -- and an order permanently barring Pratt from transferring the jobs out of state during the term of the current collective bargaining agreement.

"Pratt & Whitney presented a great case against itself -- demonstrating that it failed to negotiate in good faith with the union and state, and that it cannot lawfully move Connecticut jobs to Singapore, Japan and other states," Blumenthal said.

"Pratt should not be permitted to eliminate jobs, causing harm to Connecticut's economy and profound financial distress to hundreds of families, in violation of its binding contractual promises to its workers. Pratt has not demonstrated that transfer of this work -- work that has consistently and increasingly generated profits -- would result in any savings during the term of the present contract.

"Pratt disingenuously demanded concessions that it knew to be impossible, callously violating its legal agreement with workers to make every reasonable effort to preserve work, even when the concession cost savings outweighed the expense of transferring jobs.

"Despite its determination to betray its contract with workers, Pratt performed a gross charade of negotiations with the state and union. The company's own executives essentially admitted their own sham, testifying that Pratt had no intention of accepting the concessions it dubiously demanded.

"The court cannot in good conscience allow Pratt to violate its legal and moral obligations -- devastating families, and damaging the entire state economy."