Blumenthal Calls Pratt Negotiation A “Sham”
February 4, 2010 by Josh Morgan
Lawyers for Pratt & Whitney and the local machinist union are in a “standby” position as they await the final ruling of a district court judge on whether the manufacturing company can close two Connecticut facilities, an action that would cost more than 900 workers their jobs.
Both sides had expected U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall to make a ruling last Friday, but then were told that a decision could come by the beginning of this week. However, as of Wednesday, nothing had been forthcoming.
Last summer, the manufacturing giant announced to the union that it planned to shut down an engine repair center in Cheshire and a smaller facility in East Hartford. If both plants were to close, almost 1,000 jobs would be lost in the state and be sent to Georgia or overseas. Over a two month time frame, the union, the state, and Pratt discussed alternatives such as reopening the union contract, offering concessions, and tax credits, all of which were deemed too little to help Pratt keep the facilities running.
Last week, on Jan. 27, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who recently announced his intention to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by current U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), testified in court that the company did, in his opinion, violate the union's contract and the jobs should remain in Connecticut. He said that, based on the evidence, Pratt had no intention of keeping these jobs in the state and its attempts to negotiate concessions were done to camouflage its true purpose.
“Powerful evidence and Pratt's own admission show that it broke the law by demanding concessions that were unnecessary, unreasonable and unachievable,” Blumenthal said. “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.”
He called the company's negotiations with the state and union a “sham,” adding that it was a “charade to conceal its foregone conclusion to move jobs out of state.”
Said Blumenthal, “the company's own executives essentially admitted so, testifying that Pratt had no intention of accepting the concessions it dubiously demanded.”
According to James Parent, the assistant directing business representative for the local Machinist Union District 26, the union perspective has long been that Pratt & Whitney did not act in good faith in its negotiations, as required by the union's contract. In September, a lawsuit was filed, claiming that Pratt did not make every reasonable effort to preserve the jobs. During weeks of testimony, union leaders and Pratt executives testified and it is now up to Hall to render a decision.
Both facilities could be closed this year, while the work at the two plants would be transferred to new locations by 2011.
Pratt spokesman Gregory Brostowicz declined to comment on the status of the hearings, saying that the company would release a statement after a ruling was made.