Appeals Court Rules Against Pratt

July 15, 2010 by Josh Morgan

A federal appeals court supported an earlier ruling to stop engineering giant Pratt & Whitney from moving work outside of Connecticut, a move that preserves 1,000 jobs at least until December.
In February, the U.S. District Court ruled that Pratt failed to make every reasonable effort to preserve the jobs located in it’s Cheshire and East Hartford plants. It was viewed as a victory for the International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 26 which had sued the company for what it felt was a breech of its union contract. After the District Court sided with the Union, Pratt almost immediately appealed the decision.
The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled against Pratt on July 8, assuring that those jobs would not be terminated before the union contract expires on Dec. 5.
"The district court concluded that Pratt had not made, and was not making, every reasonable effort to preserve bargaining unit work as required by the (collective bargaining agreement)," the 23-page judgment states. "We find no error in the district court's determination that Pratt failed to pursue the goal of preserving bargaining unit work in good faith. We therefore affirm the judgment."
In the fall of 2009, Pratt & Whitney announced its plans to close both factories and move the work to Georgia and overseas to Asia. The Machinists Union sued the company as a result, stating its belief that Pratt didn't act in good faith to find a reasonable alternative. Many local lawmakers urged Pratt to reconsider, and the company was offered incentives to stay, but deemed the offers insignificant in helping to preserve the jobs.
In a statement released last week, Pratt said it was disappointed in the ruling and would abide by the court's decision.
"We are disappointed and disagree with the court’s ruling. Based upon the lower court ruling, we knew this was an up-hill battle but we believe the court misinterpreted the contract and our intent," Pratt stated. "While we will abide by the ruling, we do not agree with the decision. We believe we acted in good faith and genuinely made every reasonable effort to keep the work performed at the Cheshire Engine Center and CARO in Connecticut."
Jim Parent, the assistant directing business representative for the local Machinist Union District 26, said the workers deserved a fair chance to negotiate with the company, but Pratt did not allow them that chance.
"This once again confirms what we've said all along. Pratt didn't give us a chance to address their concerns to keep the work here," Parent said. "It's more than 1,000 hourly and salary jobs, that's 1,000 workers who deserve a fair chance to keep their livelihoods, and a thousand families who depend on those wage earners."
U.S. Congressman Chris Murphy (D-5) applauded the ruling, calling on Pratt to work with the union in an effort to keep the jobs in the state.
"Today's decision is a victory for the workers in Cheshire and East Hartford, a victory for Connecticut, and in the long-run will be the right move for the company," Murphy said. "Now that this case is definitively closed, Pratt & Whitney should stop looking for ways to close these plants and instead work with the employees and their elected officials to keep these jobs in Connecticut."
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who had long fought against Pratt's decision, echoed Murphy's sentiments and suggested the manufacturing giant find ways to make it work with the union.
"I urge the company to abandon further efforts to overturn this decision and instead seek common ground with workers and the state in keeping jobs in Connecticut."
State Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-103, whose district includes parts of Cheshire, characterized last week's ruling as a win for the workers and the region, and said she was happy that that the efforts to preserve these jobs was successful.
"The court's decision today is a great victory, not just for the 1,000 Pratt & Whitney workers and their families, but for the entire state of Connecticut," Esty said. "Today's ruling underscores how important it is to work together to create a climate in our state so that businesses will not only keep present jobs, but look to create new jobs."
The Union contract expires on Dec. 5, and Pratt said no decisions have been made, and they expect to sit down at the table with the union reps later this year.
"No decisions have been made on what actions we will take when the current contract expires. As we approach that time, we will examine market conditions, customer decisions, and the performance of our facilities. The process will include negotiations with the IAM as part of the discussions for the new contract," Pratt said.