Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-272 (2025)

Prohibited acts of employers and employee organizations

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 5-271 including a lockout; (2) dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization; (3) discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he has signed or filed any affidavit, petition or complaint or given any information or testimony under sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive; (4) refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an employee organization which has been designated in accordance with the provisions of said sections as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit; including but not limited to refusing to discuss grievances with such exclusive representative; (5) discriminating in regard to hiring or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization; (6) refusing to reduce a collective bargaining agreement to writing and to sign such agreement; (7) violating any of the rules and regulations established by the board regulating the conduct of representation elections.

(b) Employee organizations or their agents are prohibited from: (1) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in subsection (a) of section 5-271; (2) restraining or coercing an employer in the selection of his representative for purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances; (3) refusing to bargain collectively in good faith, with an employer, if it has been designated in accordance with the provisions of sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit; (4) breaching their duty of fair representation pursuant to section 5-271; (5) violating any of the rules and regulations established by the board regulating the conduct of representation elections; or (6) refusing to reduce a collective bargaining agreement to writing and sign such agreement.

(c) For the purposes of sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer or his designated representatives and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times, including meetings appropriately related to the budget-making process, and bargain in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other conditions of employment, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation shall not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.

(d) Nothing herein shall diminish the authority and power of the Employees' Review Board, the Department of Administrative Services or any state agency established by statute, charter or special act to establish, conduct and grade merit examinations and to rate candidates in order of their relative excellence from which appointments or promotions may be made to positions in the competitive division of the classified service of the state served by the Department of Administrative Services. The establishment, conduct and grading of merit examinations, the rating of candidates and the establishment of lists from such examinations and the appointments from such lists shall not be subject to collective bargaining.

(P.A. 75-566, S. 3; P.A. 77-614, S. 118, 610; P.A. 80-483, S. 150, 186; P.A. 81-472, S. 2, 159; P.A. 93-426, S. 3; P.A. 03-278, S. 11.)

History: P.A. 77-614 replaced personnel department and personnel policy board with department of administrative services in Subsec. (d); P.A. 80-483 changed “appeals” to “appeal” in board's name in Subsec. (d); P.A. 81-472 amended Subsec. (d) to refer to the employee's review board, rather than the personnel appeal board; P.A. 93-426 inserted a new Subdiv. (4) in Subsec. (b) to prohibit an employee organization which represents state employees from breaching its duty of fair representation to its members and redesignated existing Subdivs. (4) and (5) as (5) and (6), respectively; P.A. 03-278 made a technical change in Subsec. (b), effective July 9, 2003.

See Sec. 5-226f re pilot program authorizing discussion between the state and union representatives concerning the state classifications and examination system.

Cited. 192 C. 539; 197 C. 91; 201 C. 685; 216 C. 253; 226 C. 670.

Cited. 8 CA 197.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Connecticut State Coll. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, 495 A.2d 1069 (Conn. 1985).
Connecticut State Coll. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, 495 A.2d 1069 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 11× “yees, and, thereafter, by statute unilaterally changes one of the conditions of employment set forth in said Agreement (despite its agreement not to effect any such change), has the State violated its obligation to refrain from failing to bargain in good faith concerning adverse…”
Conboy v. State, 974 A.2d 669 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× “6 See General Statutes § 5-272 (c) (providing in relevant part that statutory obligation to bargain collectively “shall not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the maMng of a concession”).”
Dep't of Admin. Servs. v. Employees' Review Bd., 628 A.2d 957 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 4× “Under *674 this law, the state has the duty to bargain with state employees who are represented by an employee organization over questions of “wages, hours and other conditions of employment.”
Lieberman v. State Bd. of Labor Relations, 579 A.2d 505 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes §§ 5-272 (e), 7-470 (c) and 10-153d (b).”
Cianci v. Connecticut Council for Am. Fed'n of State, 512 A.2d 232 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 5-272 provides in part: “(a) Employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 5-271 including a lockout; (2) dominating or interfering…”
Fetterman v. Univ. of Connecticut, 473 A.2d 1176 (Conn. 1984). “*557 Even if we assume that this claim is properly labeled a prohibited practice under § 5-272, we do not read the act to provide nor do we find authority for the assertion that any state board of labor relations remedy available to the plaintiff is exclusive.”
Local 391, Council 4, AFSCME v. Dep't of Corr., 817 A.2d 1279 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Initially, the plaintiff also claimed that the application to vacate should have been granted because the arbitration award violated the public policy expressed in General Statutes §§ 5-272 (c) and 5-278 (e).”
AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 & 1565 v. Dep't of Corr., 714 A.2d 75 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “The union brought, pursuant to General Statutes § 5-272 of the State Employee Relations Act, General Statutes §§ 5-270 through 5-280, a prohibited practice complaint against the department.”
O'Rourke v. Dept. of Labor, 271 A.3d 700 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “) Piteau v. Board of Educa- tion, supra, 674 n.7.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.