X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that the issue of the enforceability of alleged individual contracts providing for certain wage supplements was neither of “peripheral concern” to federal labor law, nor did it touch “interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility” to avoid the broad preemptive scope of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), the state court reasoned that whether a bargaining unit employee may enforce such a contract as a matter of federal labor law and policy, are matters that are best left to the federal agency charged with administering the NLRA. Barbieri v United Technologies Corp., 255 Conn. 708 (2001). In Barbieri, due to a restructuring, the employer tried to soften the transition of its employees from salaried to hourly bargaining unit positions by maintaining a policy of paying such employees a temporary wage supplement in addition to the maximum rate of pay, as defined by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). However, due to union objections, the employer agreed to discontinue the wage supplement policy and memorialized its agreement with the union in a letter, which indicated that all employees demoted from salaried positions to hourly status would “be paid no more than the maximum of the grade to which they are assigned.” The affected employees then filed their state law breach of contract claim. In light of these facts, the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that in order to receive the benefit of the wage supplement program, the employees agreed to accept positions in the bargaining unit. They continued to work for the employer in those positions, “reaping the benefit of the collective bargaining agreement, as well as the supplemental wage program, when the [employer] and the union had agreed to discontinue the program. The breach of contract action in this case is not peculiarly local, but, rather, because the [employees] agreed to return to the bargaining unit, it implicates the ‘comprehensive amalgam of substantive law and regulatory arrangements that Congress set up in the [NLRA] to govern labor-management relations affecting interstate commerce.’ ” Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court for the defendant was vacated. � 2001, CCH INCORPORATED. All Rights Reserved.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.