635 A.2d 891 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1993
The plaintiff, the Connecticut Employees Union Independent, Inc. (union), appeals the decision of the defendant state board of labor relations (labor board) dismissing the complaint the union brought on behalf of its member employee, John Marcin. The labor board acted pursuant to General Statutes §
The facts are essentially not in dispute. The union and the defendant state of Connecticut, Western Connecticut State University (university) entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering the period July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1988, under the state employees relations act. Pursuant to that agreement, in April, 1988, Marcin filed a grievance claiming that he was not being properly compensated for overtime hours he had worked.
Since 1982, Marcin had held the position of chief stationary engineer at grade 21, progressing from step 1 to step 7, as of January, 1988, in the contract salary schedule. Article 18, § (d) of the collective bargaining contract provides that General Statutes §
In September, 1988, the union and the university representatives met and entered into a settlement agreement that resolved Marcin's grievance. The settlement agreement provided that the university would pay Marcin for all overtime hours worked, retroactively beginning *3 in January, 1983, and for all overtime hours to be worked in the future. The union thereupon withdrew the grievance.
Later in September, 1988, when the union attempted to have the settlement implemented, the defendant state personnel administration and the university refused. The defendants claimed that the settlement agreement violated the collective bargaining agreement and General Statutes §§
The essence of the union's argument is that the failure of the university to comply with a grievance settlement agreement constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith. As a necessary corollary to that argument, the union claims that the labor board erred in concluding that the settlement agreement violated the statutes so as to render it invalid.
The labor board's decision that is the subject of this appeal is based on its analysis of two statutes, §
Section §
The crux of the labor board's decision in the present case is its finding that the grievance settlement agreement between the union and the university constituted a "supplemental understanding" as that term is used in §
"Although the construction and interpretation of a statute is a question of law for the courts to decide . . . it is a well established practice of [the] court to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement."Starr v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection,
In the present case, the court finds the interpretation of §
The appeal is dismissed.