(a) Employees shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right of self-organization, to form, join or assist any employee organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing on questions of wages, hours and other conditions of employment and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, free from actual interference, restraint or coercion.
(b) When an employee organization has been designated by the State Board of Labor Relations as the representative of the majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, or has been recognized by the chief executive officer of a municipal employer as the representative of the majority of employees in an appropriate unit, that employee organization shall be recognized by the municipal employer as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of such unit.
(c) When an employee organization has been designated in accordance with the provisions of sections 7-467 to 7-477, inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, it shall have the right to act for and to negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall be responsible for representing the interests of all such employees without discrimination and without regard to employee organization membership.
(d) When an employee organization has been designated in accordance with the provisions of sections 7-467 to 7-477, inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, it shall have a duty of fair representation to the members of that unit.
(e) An individual employee at any time may present a grievance to his employer and have the grievance adjusted, without intervention of an employee organization, provided the adjustment shall not be inconsistent with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement then in effect. The employee organization certified or recognized as the exclusive representative shall be given prompt notice of the adjustment.
(February, 1965, P.A. 159, S. 2; 1967, P.A. 491, S. 2; P.A. 93-426, S. 4.)
History: 1967 act amended Subsec. (b) to specify that recognition of employee representative be made by chief executive officer; P.A. 93-426 inserted new Subsec. (d) to impose a duty of fair representation on an employee organization which represents municipal employees and redesignated existing Subsec. (d) as (e).
Cited. 171 C. 347, 349; Id., 553. Standing to test constitutionality of binding arbitration provisions of Municipal Employees Relations Act discussed. 181 C. 421. Cited. 182 C. 93; 185 C. 88; 196 C. 192; 200 C. 38; 201 C. 577; Id., 685; 204 C. 746; 205 C. 116; 210 C. 549; 212 C. 294; 215 C. 14; 221 C. 244; 222 C. 233; 224 C. 666; 225 C. 297; 234 C. 123; 239 C. 168.
Cited. 3 CA 1; 8 CA 57; 16 CA 232.
A public announcement of plaintiff's intention to file a prohibited practice complaint against a union is protected by the Municipal Employees Relations Act when the complaint is actually filed at a later date. 31 CS 7. Cited. Id., 15; 39 CS 1; 42 CS 227; 43 CS 470.
Subsec. (a):
Essentially same language as NLRA; judicial interpretation frequently accorded federal act is of great assistance and persuasive force in interpretation of our own acts. 175 C. 349.
Notes of Decisions
Piteau v. Bd. of Educ., 15 A.3d 1067 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 12× “The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after concluding that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the state board of labor relations (board of labor relations) in accordance with General Statutes §§ 7-468 (d),…”
Tedesco v. City of Stamford, 610 A.2d 574 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “16 The union, however, did not have unfettered discretion when deciding whether to take the plaintiff’s grievance to arbitration.”
City of Hartford v. Hartford Mun. Employees Ass'n, 788 A.2d 60 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In fact, General Statutes § 7-468 (e) expressly provides: “An individual employee at any time may present a grievance to his employer and have the grievance adjusted, without intervention of an employee organization, provided the adjustment shall not be inconsistent with the…”
Labbe v. Pension Comm'n, 682 A.2d 490 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 7-468 (d); Tedesco v. Stamford, 222 Conn.”
Perretta v. City of New Britain, 440 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The court also construed “seniority by department” as used in the city charter to mean seniority within a job classification and held that the plaintiff John Argazzi, who alone among the plaintiffs was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement, was laid off in accord…”
Police Dep't v. State Bd. of Labor Relations, 622 A.2d 1005 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 7-468 (a) provides: “bights of employees and representatives, (a) Employees shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right of self-organization, to form, join or assist any employee organization, to bargain collectively through…”
Council 4, AFSCME v. State Bd. of Labor Relations, 961 A.2d 451 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 3× “, provides: “When an employee organization has been designated in accordance with the provisions of sections 7-467 to 7-477 inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, it shall have a duty of fair representation to the members of that unit.”
New Haven Firefighters Local 825 v. City of New Haven, 120 F. Supp. 3d 178 (D. Conn. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The complaint further alleges in ¶ 9 that the transfer violated Conn. Gen.Stat. § 7-468(b), “which recognizes the plaintiff Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the defendant Briscoe and other similarly situated employees.”
Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Labor Relations, 584 A.2d 1172 (Conn. 1991).
“General Statutes § 7-470 (a) provides: “Municipal employers or their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7-468; (2) dominating or interfering with the formation,…”
Local 818 of Council 4 AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Town of East Haven, 614 A.2d 1260 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs *229 claim that the defendants’ action so flagrantly flouts the town’s obligations under the above provisions that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent serious harm to the credibility and efficacy of the union, which came into existence in large part to…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-468(b): 1 case
New Haven Firefighters Local 825 v. City of New Haven, 120 F. Supp. 3d 178 (D. Conn. 2015).
“The complaint further alleges in ¶ 9 that the transfer violated Conn. Gen.Stat. § 7-468(b), “which recognizes the plaintiff Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the defendant Briscoe and other similarly situated employees.”
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.